Investigation Report No.2639

File No. / ACMA2011/1411
Licensee / Harbour Radio Pty Limited
Station / 2GB Sydney
Type of Service / Commercial Radio
Name of Program / The Chris Smith Afternoon Show
Dates of Broadcast / 11 and 17 March 2011
Relevant Code / Clause2.3(b) of the Commercial Radio Australia Codes of Practice 2010.

Investigation conclusion

The Australian Communications and Media Authority finds, in relation to The Chris Smith Afternoon Show broadcast on 11 and 17 March 2011, that Harbour Radio Pty Limited did not breach clause 2.3(b) of theCommercial Radio Australia Codes of Practice 2010.

The complaint

On the 29 July 2011, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) received a complaint regarding material broadcast on The Chris Smith Afternoon Show on 11and17March2011by the licensee of 2GB, Harbour Radio Pty Limited (the licensee).

The complainant was concerned that alternative viewpoints were not presented in the broadcast on a controversial matter of public importance.

The complainant was not satisfied with the responseof the licensee andreferred the complaintto the ACMA.[1] The complaint has been investigatedunder clause 2.3(b)of the Commercial Radio Australia Codes of Practice 2010 (the Codes).

The program

The Chris Smith Afternoon Show is a talk-back, current affairs program presented by Chris Smith. The program is broadcast on weekdays between 12:00 pm and 3:00 pm on 2GB in Sydney.

During the program broadcast on 11 March 2011, Mr Smithinterviewed Professor Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining and Geology at the University of Adelaide. Professor Plimer expressed a view that there is no evidence that ‘human emissions of carbon dioxide gives us catastrophic climate change’. Mr Smith and Professor Plimer questioned the Australia Government’s ‘policy for a carbondioxide tax’. At the conclusion of the interview, Professor Pilmer responded to questions by two callers regarding climate change. The interview lasted approximately 7 minutes.

During the program broadcast on 17 March 2011,Mr Smith commented on the Prime Minister’s speech at the Don Dunstan Foundation in relation to climate science andthe Australian Government’s proposed carbon tax. The segment lasted approximately 6 minutes.

Transcripts of the segments are at Attachment A.

Assessment

This investigation is based on an audio recording of the broadcast provided by the licensee, and submissions provided by both the licensee and the complainant. Various other audio recordings of broadcasts provided by the licensee are addressed in this report where relevant.

‘Ordinary, reasonable’ listener test

In assessing content against the Codes, 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’ listener 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 Codes, the ACMA considers the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone, and any inferences that may be drawn. In the case of factual material which is presented, the ACMA will also consider relevant omissions (if any).

Once this test has been applied to ascertain the meaning of the broadcast material, it is for the ACMA to determine whether the material has breached the Codes.

Issue 1: Whether reasonable efforts were made to present significant viewpoints

Relevant Codes provision

2.3 In the preparation and presentation of current affairs programs a licensee must use reasonable efforts to ensure that:

(b) reasonable efforts are made or reasonable opportunities are given to present significant viewpoints when dealing with controversial issues of public importance, either within the same program or similar programs, while the issue has immediate relevance to the community;

Complainant’s submission

The complainant submitted to the ACMA on 29 July 2011:

[...]

[We] consider that the [licensee] has breached Code 2.3(b) as it has not made any reasonable efforts to present significant viewpoints in relation to climate change science, being of high public importance and relevance to the community.

[...]

The views of climate change deniers such as Professors Plimer and Carter have not been balanced by that of real climate scientists who publish in the peer review science literature.

[...]

Licensee’s submission

Extracts from the licensee’s submission in relation to clause 2.3(b) of the Codes are set out at Attachment B.

Finding

The licensee did not breach clause 2.3(b) of the Codes.

Reasons

Clause 2.3(b) of the Codes requires that a licensee, in the preparation and presentation of current affairs programs, ensure that reasonable efforts are made or reasonable opportunities are given to present significant viewpoints when dealing with a controversial issue of public importance. This may be done either within the same program or similar programs, while the issue has immediate relevance to the community.

The ACMA regards clause 2.3(b) as a central safeguard in promoting the object of the Code ‘to promote accuracy and fairness in news and current affairs programs’. It is important that licenseeshave regard to the objectives of the Codes when undertaking their obligations under the Codes.

Clause 2.3(b) of the Codes does not require balance or that equal time or prominence be given to each significant viewpoint presented.

Controversial issue

In this case, the complaint referred to ‘the presentation of significant viewpoints on climate change science’, while the licensee submitted:

In broad terms the segments broadcast on 11 and 17 March 2011 that are the subject of Investigation 2639 deal with the controversial issue of public importance relating to the economic impacts, costs and efficacy of the proposed Australian federal government carbon tax in response to anthropogenic climate change.

The ACMA considers that the broadcast of 11 March 2011 dealt with two controversial issues of public importance, being: (i) climate science, specificallyanthropogenic climate change; and (ii) the Australian Government’s proposal to introduce a tax on carbon emissions; and,the broadcast of 17 March 2011 dealt with the controversial issues the Australian Government’s proposal to introduce a tax on carbon emissions.

Significant viewpoints

‘Viewpoint’ is not defined in the Codes. The Macquarie English Dictionary (Fifth edition) defines it as ‘a point of view; an attitude of mind’.

What amounts to a ‘significant viewpoint’ is assessed on a case by case basis.

The ACMA considers that a ‘significant viewpoint’ is one capable of materially contributing to listener understanding of the controversial issue and views held about it.

Were reasonable efforts made or reasonable opportunities given to present significant viewpoints during the broadcast of 11 March 2011?

In the broadcast of 11 March 2011,a significant viewpoint on the controversial issuesanthropogenic climate change and the Australian Government’s proposal to introduce a tax on carbon emissions was presented by Mr Smith and Professor Plimer.

In discussinganthropogenic climate change and the Australian Government’s proposal to introduce a carbon tax, Professor Plimer stated that ‘Garnaut is asking us [...] to forget history, forget archaeology, forget geology and allow him to put his hands in our trouser pockets, openup our wallets, and take out even more money, even though they’ve already pushed up the fuelprices, food prices and electricity prices’.

The viewpoint of Professor Garnaut on the controversial issue raised by Mr Smith and Professor Plimer would very likely have been significant, had it been presented. However, the ACMA does not consider that it was actually presented. Rather, Professor Garnaut’s viewpoint on the controversial issue was simply alluded toby Professor Plimer.

The obligation at clause 2.3(b) is to either make reasonable efforts or give reasonable opportunities.

‘Reasonable efforts’ may be demonstrated by reference to the steps taken to ascertain and incorporate more than one significant viewpoint in a program or similar programs during the currency of a controversial issue of public importance; ‘reasonable opportunities given’ may be demonstrated by reference to the opportunities the licensee has created for third parties to articulate another significant viewpoint in the program or similar program during the currency of a controversial issue of public importance.[3]

The ACMA notes that reasonable efforts or reasonable opportunities must be made or given during the currency of the particular controversial issue. In this case, the carbon tax issues raised in the segment continued as an issue of immediate relevance until at least as late as the passage of legislation for the introduction of the carbon tax in November 2011; whileanthropogenic climate changeis an ongoing issue.

The licensee submitted that it took the following steps to present significant viewpoints, which were not realised:

  1. Producers placed two calls to Professor Ross Garnaut in mid March to arrange an interview, and no response was received;
  2. Producers of the Chris Smith program requested interviews with Professor Will Steffan on 23 May 2011 and other occasions but these requests were denied;
  3. Producers of the Chris Smith program requested interviews with the Prime Minister’s office, including on 29 March 2011, 30 March 2011, 6 April 2011 and 1 August 2011, to discuss the carbon tax, but these requests were denied.

Such attempts mayhave been sufficient to satisfy the ‘reasonable opportunities given’ limb of the obligation at clause 2.3(b). However, it is unnecessary for the ACMA to express a final view on this as the licensee submitted that it demonstrated that it met the obligations at clause 2.3(b) by presenting significant viewpoints on the controversial issue of public importance in a number of similar programs on 2GB.

Assessment of the additional program material provided by the licensee

The licensee provided evidence of seven additional broadcasts in support of its submission that it met its obligations at clause 2.3 (b) of the Codes. Each of the programs used a talk-back, interview or opinion leading format. The ACMA considers that they were ‘similar programs’ for the purposes of the Codes. The date range of the broadcasts is 23 March 2011 to 28July 2011, surrounding the segment broadcast on 11 March 2011.

These included interviews broadcast with:

  1. Marcus Butler, 2GB’s political reporter;
  2. Senator Xenophon;
  3. The Hon. Greg Combet;
  4. Professor Richard Linzden;
  5. Dr David Evans;
  6. Professor Jacques le Chacheaux; and
  7. Kevin Rudd.

Transcripts of each of these interviews are set out at Attachment C.

Of these broadcasts, the ACMA considers that the following two interviews clearly presented significant alternative viewpoints on the controversial issue of anthropogenic climate change:

  1. The significant viewpoint of The Hon. Greg Combet was presented in a 15 minute uninterrupted recording of his address to the Press Club played during The Chris Smith Afternoon Showbroadcast on 13 April 2011. The Hon. Greg Combetmade it clear that he considers climate change to be anthropogenic by referring to the need to cut pollution levels:

‘Climate change is an environmental problem’.

‘Australia is one of the world’s top 20 polluters and we release more pollution per person than any other country in the developed world’.

‘To tackle climate change we need to cut our pollution levels’.

‘It is important to adopt the most economically efficient way of cutting pollution’.

‘All major economies submit important pledges to reduce their pollution [...]. These pledges already account for over 80 per cent of the world’s carbon pollution’.

‘A carbon price will cut pollution and drive investment into cleaner energy like natural gas, solar and wind power’.

‘Australia’s net carbon pollution will go down, not up’.

‘We can make huge strides towards a low pollution future’.

  1. The significant viewpoint of Senator Xenophon presented during an interview onThe Chris Smith Afternoon Showbroadcast on 23 March. Senator Xenophon stated, ‘There are too many scientists out there who are saying there are risks here and if we don’t deal with it, the consequences of not dealing with it are significant’.

The ACMA considers that the following two broadcasts clearly presented significant alternative viewpoints on the controversial issue of the Australian Government’s proposal for a tax on carbon:

  1. The significant viewpoint of The Hon. Greg Combet was presented in a 15 minute uninterrupted recording of his address to the Press Club played during The Chris Smith Afternoon Showbroadcast on 13 April 2011. The Hon. Greg Combet stated that it was in Australia’s national interest to take action on climate change and outlined the six key arguments that summarise the Government’s response to the climate change challenge, including that Australia is one of the world’s top 20 polluters, it is not acting alone as China, US, India, South Korea, Europe are also acting, and a carbon tax will cut pollution and drive investment into cleaner energy so its economy will grow; and
  2. The significant viewpoint of Kevin Rudd was presented during an interview during Sydney Live Ben Fordhambroadcast on 28 July 2011.Kevin Rudd stated that he was in favour of the carbon tax as jobswould be saved by acting on climate change and jobs would be created through new renewable energy industry, such as those springing up in Europe.

The ACMA considers that thethreeremaining broadcasts presentedthe viewpoint of a third party as opposed to an alternative viewpoint:

  1. The viewpoint of Professor Richard Linzden interviewed onThe Chris Smith Afternoon Show on 6April 2011, who stated that the CO2 increase is very small and not significant, and that Australia adopting a carbon tax would not have a discernable impact for a millennium, with a heavy cost for no benefit. The ACMA considers this to be a restatement of the viewpoint of Mr Smith and Professor Plimerin relation to the controversial issue of public importance.
  2. The viewpoint of Professor Jacques le Cacheaux interviewed onThe Chris Smith Afternoon Showon 27April 2011, who stated that a carbon tax could make companies more efficient but questioned whether it will achieve what it sets out to do as it may cost jobs and move carbon emitting industries offshore.
  3. The viewpoint of Dr David Evans interviewed onThe Chris Smith Afternoon Showon 24May2011, who said if we emitted no CO2 from now on we would lower the temperature and the Australian contribution to worldwide human emissions is insignificant. He also said that the CO2 theory models are fundamentally flawed as there are 30 year cycles of warming and cooling.

In all of the circumstances the ACMA is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that reasonable efforts were made to present significant viewpoints in the manner contemplated by clause 2.3(b) of the Codes.

Accordingly, the licensee did not breach clause 2.3(b) of the Codes.

Were reasonable efforts made or reasonable opportunities given to present significant viewpoints during the broadcast of 17 March 2011?

In thebroadcast on 17 March 2011, Mr Smith spoke about the Prime Minister’s speech at the Don Dunstan Foundation in relation to climate science and the Australian Government’s proposed carbon tax. Mr Smith quoted the Prime Minister as saying:

Mr Smith:[Quoting the Prime Minister] ‘I ask, who would I rather have on my side? Alan Jones, Piers Akerman and Andrew Bolt? Or the CSIRO, the Australian Academy of Science, the Bureau of Meteorology, NASA, the US National Atmospheric Administration, and every reputable climate scientist in the world. Did you hear that? Every reputable climate scientist in the world.’ [emphasis added by the ACMA].

The purpose of the Prime Minister’s comment was to contrast climate change deniers, such as Alan Jones, Piers Akerman and Andrew Bolt, with those who believed in anthropogenic climate change, including ‘every reputable climate scientist in the world’.

In response, Mr Smith cited a list of scientists and organisations that rejected anthropogenic climate change and had signed the Oregon Climate Change petition against global warming, including:

Mr Smith:These comments are shown up for what they are: deceptive, wrong and more lies. There was no mention that every organisation mentioned are government instrumentalities reliant on grant funding, reliant on their government. There was no mention of leading Australian scientists that question climate change, including Professor Ian Plimer, Professor Bob Carter and Dr David Evans, among others. What? None of them are reputable now because they disagree with the Prime Minister?

No mention of the Oregon Climate Change Petition which saw 31,072 US scientists sign up against the theory of man-made climate change. Let me repeat that: 31,072 US scientists. So people from, for instance, the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, the University of Ottawa, hydrologists, geo-geographers, bio- geographers, astronomers from the Russian Academy of Sciences, meteorologists form the World Meteorology Organisation Commission for Climatology, scientists and researchers from the University of Alabama in Huntsville, bio- geographers form the University of London, Los Alamos National Laboratory from the Arizona State University. I could go on.

The ACMA considers that the Prime Minister’s viewpoint was alluded to, but not presented as required by clause 2.3(b). Mr Smith quoted the Prime Minister in saying that she agrees with ‘every reputable climate scientist in the world’, then labelled her comments as ‘deceptive, wrong and more lies’. In this case the viewpoint of the Prime Minister on the issue would very likely have been significant, had it been presented. However, the ACMA does not consider it was actually presented.

As discussed above, the ACMA considers that a significant alternative viewpoint on the controversial issue of anthropogenic climate change was presented during The Chris Smith Afternoon Show broadcast on 13 April 2011, in which The Hon. Greg Combet’saddress to the Press Council was broadcast. The Hon. Greg Combet made it clear that he considers climate change to be anthropogenic by referring to the need to cut pollution levels.

The ACMA also considers that a second significant alternative viewpoint on the controversial issue of anthropogenic climate change was presented during The Chris Smith Afternoon Show broadcast on 23 March 2011, in which Senator Xenophon stated, ‘There are too many scientists out there who are saying there are risks here and if we don’t deal with it, the consequences of not dealing with it are significant’.

In relation to the broadcast of 17 March 2011, the ACMA is satisfied that the licensee has fulfilled its obligation under clause 2.3(b) of the Codes.