Investigation Report No. 2974

File no. / ACMA2013/253
Broadcaster / Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Station / ABV Melbourne
Type of service / National broadcasting
Name of program / 7.30
Date/s of broadcast / 11 December 2012
Relevant Code standards / Standards 2.1, 2.2, 4.1, 4,4and 4.5of the ABC Code of Practice 2011
Date Finalised / 6 May 2013
Decision / No breach of clause 2.1 (ensure material facts are accurate)
No breach of clause 2.2 (not materially mislead)
No breach of clause 4.1 (present news and information with due impartiality)
No breach of clause 4.4 (not misrepresent any perspective)
No breach of clause 4.5 (not unduly favour one perspective)

Background

  • The complaint concerns a segment titled, ‘Israeli Outrage’, broadcast on the 7.30 program by the ABC on 11 December 2012.
  • 7.30 is described on the ABC’s website as providing:

the best analysis of local, national and international events from an Australian perspective, weeknights on ABC1.[1]

  • The segment was introduced as follows:

Presenter: Welcome to 7.30. Tonight Israeli outrage claims Australia’s new live export rules aren’t working…

…

Presenter: Shocking new video of cattle being abused at an Israeli abattoir has prompted a criminal investigation in that country. A separate inquiry here is trying to determine whether the animals were shipped from Australia. 7.30 has discovered the abattoir was audited for one of Australia's biggest live exporters just two months before the video was shot and given a clean bill of health. The auditing of meat works was forced by last year's outcry over live animal exports, but activists insist the system doesn't work. [Reporter] has this report - and a warning the story contains disturbing images.

  • The broadcast included interviews with an Israeli journalist and animal rights activist, the Deputy Secretary of theAustralian Department of Agriculture, aChief Scientist of the RSPCA anda representative from the Australian National Farmers Federation.A transcript of the segment is at Appendix A.
  • The complainant alleged that the title of the segment, ‘Israeli Outrage’, was not ‘fair, balanced or accurate’, ‘it refers to how people think Israel treats the much-loved Palestinians’ and was ‘sensationalist at Israel’s expense’.
  • The ACMA has investigated the ABC’s compliance with standards 2.1, 2.2, 4.1, 4.4 and 4.5 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (the Code):

Accuracy

2.1Make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented in context.

2.2 Do not present factual content in a way that will materially mislead the audience. In some cases, this may require appropriate labels or other explanatory information.

Impartiality and diversity of perspectives

4.1Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.

4.4Do not misrepresent any perspective.

4.5Do not unduly favour one perspective over another.

Assessment

  • This investigation is based on submissions from the complainant and the ABC, correspondence between the complainant and the ABC, and a copy of the broadcast provided to the ACMA by the ABC. Other sources 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/listener’.
  • Australian courts have considered an ‘ordinary, reasonable viewer/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]

  • The ACMA examines what the ‘ordinary, reasonable viewer/listener’ would have understood the relevant material to have conveyed, in the context of the relevant program segment. It considers the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone and inferences that may be drawn, and in the case of factual material, 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 there has been a breach of the Code.

Issue 1:Accuracy

Finding

  • The ABC did not breachstandards2.1 and 2.2 of the Code.

Reasons

  • The segment reported on an Israeli journalist who had uncovered cruel practices at an Israeli cattle abattoir which prompted a criminal investigation by Israeli authorities. The Department of Agriculture in Australia was also investigating whether the cattle may have come from Australia. In addition, the segment indicated that the abattoir had been auditedand had passed the audit with one condition regarding a ‘rusty gate’.
  • Taking into account the broadcast as a whole, the ACMA does not consider that the title of the segment, ‘Israeli Outrage’ conveyed the inaccurate impression that the‘Israeli government’ was responsible for the cruelty in the abattoir norsuggested that ‘others’ were ‘outraged’ about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.

  • The ACMA is satisfied that in the context of the segment, the titlewould have conveyed to the ordinary, reasonable viewer that the Israeli public wasoutraged over the cruel treatment of the cattle. In this regard, the ACMA notes that:
  • the title ‘Israeli Outrage’ was shown onscreen behind the presenter and was superimposed over footage of animal rights activists holding a banner stating ‘animal.org.il’
  • the first scene of the segment depicted protesters in Israel holding up a picture of a cow
  • the last scene of the segment depicted protesters holding up a banner of a cow and a banner stating, ‘Stop live transport’
  • the segment interviewed protesters who were calling for Australia to halt live exports
  • the segment made it clear that the Israeli government was conducting a criminal investigation into the treatment of the cattle.
  • The ACMA notes that the only reference in the segment to the Israeli government was in relation to its criminal investigation. Further, there were no inferences to suggest that the title of the segment referred to Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.
  • Accordingly, the ACMA finds that the ABC complied with standards 2.1 and 2.2 of the Code.

Issue 2: Impartiality and diversity of perspectives

Finding

  • The ABC did not breach standards 4.1, 4.4 or 4.5 of the Code.

Reasons

  • The complainant was concerned that the title of the segment, ‘Israeli Outrage’ was not fair or balanced on the basis that it suggested that the Israeli government was responsible for the cruel treatment in the abattoirs.
  • For the reasons outlined above, the ACMA does not consider that the segment gave such an impression in the context of ‘the type, subject and nature of the content’ and ‘the circumstances in which the content [wa]s made and presented’. The ACMA considers the segment was a fair treatment of the subject matter and did not breach the impartiality provisions of the Code.

Appendix A

Transcript – 7.30 – 11 December 2012

Presenter: Welcome to 7.30. Tonight Israeli outrage claims Australia’s new live export rules aren’t working.

BJ, RSPCA Chief Scientist (BJ): This is an industry that clearly cannot be trusted to do things the right way.

Presenter: Shocking new video of cattle being abused at an Israeli abattoir has prompted a criminal investigation in that country. A separate inquiry here is trying to determine whether the animals were shipped from Australia. 7.30 has discovered the abattoir was audited for one of Australia's biggest live exporters just two months before the video was shot and given a clean bill of health. The auditing of meat works was forced by last year's outcry over live animal exports, but activists insist the system doesn't work. [Reporter] has this report - and a warning the story contains disturbing images.

Reporter: The workers at Israel's largest abattoir, [BT], are liberal with their use of the electric stun gun. As the cattle bellow and writhe, the workers target the cattle's eyes, genitals and anus.

Abattoir worker (translated): You have a pipe, the shocker, and you put it in his arse.
RB, Israeli journalist (RB): These were the exact instructions of the managers in my first day there. The security manager told me, "You have a probe, you have a stick, you use them to prompt the animals. If a calf doesn't move shove the electric probe in his ass and he will move."
Reporter: It's clearly painful and distressing, but worse is to come. An injured animal refuses to move and management watch on as it's dragged by a front leg behind a fork lift.
RB: These are the regular procedures, it's not what was shown, is not something special or something that is not everyday regularity.
Reporter: This footage was captured on a hidden camera in September by Israeli journalist and vegan animal rights activist [RB] who worked there undercover for 19 days. It was broadcast on Israeli television last week, causing an outcry. The Israeli Government has now launched a criminal investigation. Mr [RB] says most of the animals he filmed are Australian.
RB: Some of the cattle I filmed the ear tags and it says AUS, Australian. Also the workers told me that the cows are Australian, and the managers... most of the calves that are slaughtered there are Australian.
Reporter: It's impossible to tell from the footage if the animals came from Australia. But the Department of Agriculture says they may well have.
PG, Deputy Secretary, Department of Agriculture (PG): It's a reasonable expectation, and we're conducting an investigation and we're doing that in conjunction with the Israeli authorities who are conducting their own investigations.
Reporter: [PG] says that three Australian companies previously exported to BT, Elders International say the cattle in the footage aren't theirs, and Livestock Shipping Services say its last shipment arrived in March.
Reporter: [AA] owns the abattoir and is in a major beef supplier in Israel. It says it receives cattle from a number of countries and doesn't know if these animals came from Australia. The vision also shows the cattle being slaughtered. There are no reflex tests to ensure the animals are unconscious and cattle are moved as they bleed to death.
BJ: When you've got an animal that is in pain because it is losing consciousness from a cut to the throat, it's losing blood very rapidly, but it is still... this is a painful situation it's in. Anything that happens to that animal adds to the pain that it's enduring while it is still conscious.
Four Corners (2011): These are the pictures the cattle industry doesn't want you to see. The cruelty and suffering...
Reporter: This treatment was supposed to have ended following the outcry over a Four Corners report last year. After that program aired, live exports to Indonesia were suspended and a new export supply chain assurance scheme introduced to ensure better animal welfare outcomes. The RSPCA's chief scientist has analysed the footage and written to the Department of Agriculture, saying the vision proves the abattoir fails to meet basic guidelines.
BJ: But what I've observed in this abattoir breaches the standards that are set by the exporters Supply Chain Assurance Scheme multiple times. So in terms of the way in which animals are moved around in the pens prior to slaughter, the use of the prodder, the number of times the prodder was used, the way in which it was used, the dragging of animals to move animals through the pens, picking up animals and throwing them - all of those things are clear breaches of the SCAS standards and of OIE - that's the international animal welfare guidelines.
Reporter: The RSPCA also says the new auditing scheme to monitor animal welfare standards is not working in practice. 7.30 has learnt Elders commissioned an auditor to assess [BT] in July and that the abattoir passed the audit with just one condition.
Elders Auditing Findings (voiceover): The following non-compliances were identified: rusty gate causing excessive noise.
Reporter: After completion of the audit, representatives of the organisation carried out immediate CA with grease on the rusted door and "confirmed as OK".
BJ: I just couldn't believe that. After having looked at the footage and understanding how many things are wrong, how could an auditor have walked in the door of that place and thought that it was acceptable? I just don't understand.

RB: This report is a joke. It says that they found a rusty gate there or something like that. You can see in the photos the rusty gate is not the first thing you would notice at a place like that. I didn't notice it - maybe because it's not a very sharp-eyed investigator.
Reporter: Elders International declined to answer questions about their audit. The company says it will require another independent audit before continuing to ship to [BT], as does Live Stock Shipping Services. The Department of Agriculture's Deputy Secretary says its investigation will look at how the facility passed the initial audit.
PG: Certainly we were appalled by what we saw on that video and what was brought to light by the Israeli TV crew - that's just not acceptable - but it doesn't mean that the system's not working.
Reporter: He insists the changes to live export laws are robust, and that this was just an initial audit that would have been followed by others.
PG: People can have faith and people have to understand that you can't get 100 per cent right all the time. Any system can have failures and our job is to try to find out if there's any problems in the system, if there are poor performers in the system our job is to identify them and make sure they're not part of the industry.
Reporter: [JL] from the National Farmers Federation (JL) viewed the footage today.
JL: Some of that footage, I think, was, you know... pretty difficult to watch because you're seeing animals in distress... you know, people who deal with livestock simply don't like seeing animals in distress being mistreated, and I think in those circumstances it's very disappointing.
Reporter: Mr [JL] says the new system is working, and another audit will allow practices like those at the [BT] abattoir to be corrected.
JL: I think watching that footage, it just shows how important it is that the Australian industry continues in those markets and continues working in those markets to increase animal welfare standards. I think once we go out of the system there's not too many other people that are working there to continually improve.
Reporter: A spokeswoman for the abattoir's owners said consultants from Meat and Livestock Australia are arriving today to retrain its staff.
AA Spokeswoman (voiceover): We would like to emphasise unequivocally that we condemn the behaviour that was presented in the video. Rude, sadistic behaviour - as presented - is conflicted with the company's procedures. The plant manage has resigned, and all contract workers involved in this case were suspended immediately.
Reporter: Overnight, protestors took to the streets in Tel Aviv calling for management at the abattoir to be jailed and for Australia to halt live exports.
Protester 1: I think the exposure is another proof that Australia should ban live exports and the sooner the better.
Protester 2: Australia must stop shipping this kind of beef to Israel.
Reporter: As animal welfare advocates prepare for another round of battle, industry is warning shutting down live exports will just see more suffering.
BJ: In my view, no Australian animals or any other animals should be going into this abattoir until the staff have been trained properly and the infrastructure is put in place to let animals be handled appropriately.

ACMA Investigation Report – 7.30 broadcast by ABC on 11 December 20121

[1]

[2]Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (1998) NSWLR 158 at 164-167.