Questioning the ABC
Senator VAN: Mr Anderson, do you think the ABC is the best version of itself that it could possibly be?
Mr Anderson: I'm incredibly proud of the ABC, what it achieves and what it's been doing, but that doesn't mean that there isn't always room to improve from time to time.
Senator VAN: Would you characterise anyone seeking to look into whether the ABC could be better or not as an attack on the ABC?
Mr Anderson: Sorry, I don't understand the question. We will, invariably, from time to time, review ourselves and look at whether we're doing the best that we can, whether it be on the quality of our editorial publications, on television, on radio or online. We're always looking to ensure that we're efficient. We're statutorily obligated to be looking for efficiencies, if that's what you mean, Senator.
Senator VAN: Not necessarily. Is the ABC the only organisation that can question the ABC and ask whether things can be done better or not?
Mr Anderson: We are, I think, the most scrutinised media organisation in the country. In appearances at Senate estimates—this is the second spillover session we've done this year—I think we've hit a thousand questions on notice throughout the year. I think that we should be held to account by the Australian public. We take their concerns seriously. We take complaints handling seriously. No, I don't think we're the only ones who can scrutinise ourselves, and I don't think that happens, either.
Senator VAN: If this Senate committee were to look into your complaints handling procedures, that wouldn't be seen as an attack on the ABC?
Mr Anderson: I don't think we're above scrutiny at all, and I respect the powers of the Senate committee. However, I agree with Chair Ita Buttrose's statement with regard to trying to run an inquiry, when we're doing our own independent review at the same time, that delivers earlier than the ABC's review would've delivered. I don't say that we're above scrutiny at all, and I don't think we're above scrutiny by the Senate committee, but trying to run the same inquiry, at the same time, to deliver an outcome ahead of what the board is doing and the board is obligated to do, I think, is problematic.
Senator VAN: You would have no problem with this committee running an inquiry into your complaints handling post that review?
Mr Anderson: Post the review, no. While we're running the review, I think that's a problem.
Senator ABETZ: What's the difficulty in doing it in tandem?
Mr Anderson: I think that anything in tandem delivering before the board's review is prejudicial towards the outcome that the board has put in place and is trying to run at the same time. Rather than have people submit to the Senate inquiry, you want people to engage with and submit to the ABC inquiry. There was, and there is, a call for public submissions into the inquiry that the ABC Board is undertaking. That should be allowed to transpire, be delivered in March and be published by the board in April. Then, of course, if the Senate committee want to do an inquiry—and I note that it's been suspended, so I fully expect there to be an inquiry on the other side of this if the committee so choose.
Senator ABETZ: What's more important—the board heading an inquiry of its own or the democratically elected parliament determining that there should be, in the event that that were to have occurred, an inquiry into the ABC? Is a board review fundamentally more important than a parliamentary review?
Mr Anderson: I think the board has statutory independence that should be observed. I think the board, having already announced an inquiry into its complaints handling process—and there are good people who go about the complaints handling process; there's a lot of talk about this, and I think they do do high-quality work. But I think the board should be allowed to undertake that, with its independence, and exercise that—and its legal obligations, I might add—without having a Senate inquiry doing exactly the same thing after the board had announced that they were going to do it.
Senator ABETZ: Who clothed the ABC with its independence? Was it the parliament?
Mr Anderson: Yes. It provided—
Senator ABETZ: Yes, thank you.
Mr Anderson: its statutory independence, yes.
Senator VAN: Mr Anderson, you'd be aware that I've been putting questions to you in this committee at estimates about the ABC's complaints handling process for over two years now.
Mr Anderson: Yes.
Senator VAN: I would say this committee has a longstanding interest in this. I note that your board inquiry was announced only a matter of days or weeks before you were last here, or here virtually, in estimates. Was that in any way trying to stop this committee looking at your complaints handling process?
Mr Anderson: No, nor have I been an obstacle to the committee looking at complaints handling. What I will say is that, after the board announced that it was doing its own review into complaints handling, I think the independence of the ABC and its board and chair should be respected while we go about doing our review, and then it's up to the committee to decide whether or not they want to do an inquiry subsequent to that.
Senator VAN: So independence is an important value to the ABC?
Mr Anderson: Yes.
Senator VAN: So an independent complaints-handling process should have similar value to you?
Mr Anderson: It does. This is why it's being headed up by John McMillan, the former Commonwealth Ombudsman, as well as Jim Carroll. They are operating independently with their review terms of reference. They will report back to the board in March. At the moment, they've put out an issues paper and they're taking public submissions. They have wide-ranging scope to cover a great many things with regard to complaints handling.
Senator VAN: I was talking more about your complaints handling being done independently of the ABC, rather than the review into the complaints handling. I'll leave that there. Mr Anderson or Mr McMurtrie, does the ABC hold itself, or should it hold itself, to the same standards as commercial broadcasters, or should it be held to a higher standard?
Mr Anderson: We hold ourselves, as we should, to the highest editorial standard of all media in this country, as the national public broadcaster.
Senator VAN: Does that go across all of your platforms and shows?
Mr Anderson: Yes.
Senator VAN: Following your appearance at estimates last time, your Media Watch program decided that it was fair game to say that you should only be held to the same standards as commercial broadcasters.
Mr Anderson: I think I saw it, but I don't remember it that well. I take your word for it that they said that. I think that, certainly, the ABC should have the highest quality and the highest editorial standards of any media outlet in this country.
Senator VAN: So, if I were to make a complaint about that show, how would it be handled?
Mr Anderson: It would be handled independently of the program unit. Our audience and consumer affairs area is independent of any other content team, much like SBS, and they will independently examine your complaint. They take all complaints seriously—the complaints-handling procedure is available on our website—and they come back to you with their results. I cannot intervene in what it is that they do, as editor-in-chief and managing director. They operate independently, and they report to the board on a regular basis via—
Senator VAN: Thank you. Mr McMurtrie, as editorial director, what role do you play in holding programs to the highest editorial standards?
Mr McMurtrie: My role is often working with the prepublication process and the editorial policy advisers who work with programs in the lead-up to publication.
Senator VAN: Did you see that Media Watch piece?
Mr McMurtrie: I always watch Media Watch. I can't say I have a photographic memory of it, but I'm aware of the program, yes.
Senator VAN: Do you agree with the proposition it put?
Mr McMurtrie: Media Watch is a review program. There was certainly nothing in that program that I thought was a problem with editorial standards. Mr Barry, as a reviewer in that context, is entitled to put his informed view.
Senator VAN: He put that to the show, and I tend to agree with him. In terms of your people putting opinion on air, as we raised last time, there's news, analysis and opinion. This is according to your own editorial guidelines. I put some questions at last estimates, and I'm looking forward to those answers on notice. I think it's by the end of this week, isn't it, Chair?
CHAIR: I think that's right.
Senator VAN: I won't put those again. Would you agree that you're AM program is a news program?
Mr McMurtrie: Media Watch?
Senator VAN: No—AM, your radio show, and The World Today and PM. What do you call the Saturday morning one now? This Week?
Mr McMurtrie: This Week, I believe. Yes.
Senator VAN: That's a news program as opposed to an opinion program. Would you agree?
Mr McMurtrie: Yes.
Senator VAN: So, when that show uses an opinion or puts pieces of analysis to air, should it be flagging that it does that?
Mr McMurtrie: Every current affairs story can have elements of all three: it can have factual reporting, it can have analysis and it can have opinion. Generally, the opinion is from somebody you're interviewing, an expert for example. Our journalists are entitled, under the analysis policy, which I'm sure you've read, to form professional judgements—to stitch together different pieces of information to try and provide more context to the audience and to make a professional judgement to steer the audience through what can sometimes be conflicting pieces of information. It's not an opinion; they're essentially providing greater depth or greater understanding around the issues.
Senator VAN: You said that the editorial guidelines say that they can put an opinion or analysis—which I agree with; they should be able to—but do you agree that what is news, what is analysis and what is opinion should be articulated?
Mr McMurtrie: I think we generally do do that. I think it comes down to audience understanding, though. The programs that you're speaking of—AM, The World Today, PM—have been around for decades. The audience well understands the nature of those sorts of shows, and they understand that in some respects it can be interviews that are dealing with the contest of ideas. Sometimes it's more fact based reporting, if it's a breaking story about a disaster—
Senator VAN: But is it news by your own editorial guidelines?
Mr McMurtrie: It is news, yes.
Senator VAN: Does it have to be fact?
Mr McMurtrie: It has to be fact; it has to be evidence based, yes.
Senator VAN: How would a listener be able to tell what's opinion, what's analysis and what's fact? It's not flagged.
Mr McMurtrie: I think most listeners understand that when, for example, we're talking to a medical expert, we are seeking their informed opinion on something. I think they understand when we're talking to a politician that that that politician is putting the view around their party or their policy position. I think the audience well understands that.
Senator VAN: What happens if you're interviewing your own presenters?
Mr McMurtrie: I think they understand that the journalists are bringing analysis.
Senator VAN: On 20 November, this week, Linda Mottram did a 10-minute interview with Raf Epstein about matters in Victoria. What was that? Was that news, was that analysis or was that opinion?
Mr McMurtrie: If it was on Linda's program it would be subject to the normal editorial standards for a news program, but, to give you a really thoughtful response, I'd need to listen to it.
Senator VAN: I'm happy to table it, Chair, so I'll do that.
