Investigation Report No. 2769

File No. / ACMA2012/316
Licensee / Channel Seven Melbourne Pty Ltd
Station / HSV, Melbourne
Type of Service / Commercial broadcasting (Television)
Name of Program / Australia’s Got Amazing Talent
Date of Broadcast / 15 November 2011
Relevant Legislation/Code / Broadcasting Services Act 1992
  • Section 149
Commercial Television Code of Practice 2010
  • Clause 2.4 (Classification of other material)
  • Appendix 4 (Television Classification Guidelines – PG classification)
  • Clause 7.11 (Complaints handling – Time limits on responses)

Investigation conclusion

  • No breach of clause 2.4 (Classification of other material) and clause 7.11 (Complaints handling – Time limits on responses) of the Commercial Television Code of Practice 2010.

The complaint

On 15 February 2012, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) received a written complaint, via email, regarding the broadcast by Channel Seven Melbourne Pty Ltd (HSV) of the program Australia’s Got Amazing Talent on 15 November 2011.

The complaint alleged that the program contained inappropriate language for the PG classification.

As the complainant did not receive a response to the written complaint to the licensee, they referred the matter to the ACMA for investigation.

The program

The series Australia’s Got Talent is described as:

The nation's favourite light entertainment show [...]

Judges Dannii Minogue, Kyle Sandilands and Brian McFadden have travelled the country on the biggest audition search in Australia's Got Talent history. Across the vast expanse of Australia - North, South, East, West – no stone has been left unturned in a bid to find the nation's greatest talents.[1]

The episode identified in the complaint was broadcast on 15 November 2011 from 8.30 pm and was classified PG. The episode is a special – Network Seven describes it as:

Channel Seven’s Australia’s Got Talent has been the nation’s number one variety show for five years, and to celebrate, host Grant Denyer is taking us on a look back at all the weird and wonderful performances in Australia’s Got Amazing Talent.[2]

The segment identified in the complaint relates to the performance of a comedian. In giving feedback to the contestant, one of the judgesstates:

I would say scrap everything that everyone has said and stick to ripping off other people’s stuff, cause your stuff sucks arse.

Assessment

The assessment is based on a copy of the relevant broadcast provided to the ACMA by the licensee and submissions from the complainant and licensee.

Issue 1: Classification

Relevant provisions

The Commercial Television Code of Practice 2010 (the Code) contains the following provisions that are relevant in the matter raised by the complainant:

SECTION 2: CLASSIFICATION

[...]

Classification of Other Material

2.4All other material for broadcast: Subject to Clauses 2.3 and 2.4.1, all other material for broadcast must be classified according to the Television Classification Guidelines (set out in Appendix 4) or, where applicable, the stricter requirements of Section 3: Program Promotions and Section 6: Classification and Placement of Commercials.

[...]

Appendix 4:TELEVISION CLASSIFICATION GUIDELINES

[...]

The Parental Guidance Recommended (PG) Classification

3.Material classified PG may contain careful presentations of adult themes or concepts but must be mild in impact and remain suitable for children to watch with supervision.

[...]

3.3Language: Low-level coarse language may only be used infrequently, when justified by the storyline or program context.

Complainant’s submissions

On 18 November 2011, the complainant submitted to the licensee:

I am writing to complain of the vulgar language that was used on the x factor program[3] on Tuesday 15th November 2011.

The host judge [Kyle] Sandilands used the term “SUCK ARSE”

Licensee’s submissions

On 15 March 2012, the licensee submitted to the ACMA that:

The [...] program was classified PG (Parental Guidance) for broadcast and scheduled at 8.30pm. The Commercial Television Code of Practice 2010 (the “Code”) provides that “material classified PG may contain careful presentations of adult themes or concepts but must be mild in impact and remain suitable for children to watch with supervision” (paragraph 3 of Appendix 4). With regard to coarse language, the Code provides that “low-level coarse language may only be used infrequently, when justified by the storyline or program context” (Paragraph 3.3 of Appendix 4).

The material referred to by the complainant is a comment made by Kyle Sandilands in the context of the program Australia’s Got Amazing Talent in which Mr Sandilands is one of a panel of three judges. The “talent” performing on stage at the time Mr Sandilands’ comment is comedian, Jordan Paris, who had previously been accused of appropriating material from other comedians. Now returning to the stage to try to salvage his reputation, Mr Paris claimed he would be performing his own material. After Mr Paris’ jokes fall rather flat, Mr Sandilands, in his capacity as a judge and entertainer, said (in part) “...stick to ripping off other people’s stuff because your stuff sucks ass”.

The use of “ass” and its derivatives are generally accepted as language sufficiently mild in impact to be accommodated at PG. “Sucks ass” is an expression which is not uncommon in everyday usage and is generally used to denote “bad” just as the expression “kick ass” is used to denote “good”. In context it is clear that the comment, uttered only once, is directed towards the material and not the performer. Furthermore, in using the expression, Mr Sandilands brings humour to an awkward situation which allows the audience and the performer to laugh off what could have otherwise been a humiliating experience.

Seven considers that the isolated use of the expression used humorously and in a way which is appropriate to the context of the program, complies with the Television Classification Guidelines set out in Appendix 4 of the Code.

Finding

The ACMA finds that Channel Seven Melbourne Pty Ltd, in broadcasting Australia’s Got Amazing Talent on 15 November 2011 at 8.30 pm, did not breach clause 2.4 of the Commercial Television Code of Practice 2010.

Reasons

The episode of Australia’s Got Amazing Talent identified by the complainant was classified PG. The Code states that low-level coarse language may only be used infrequently, when justified by the story line or program context.

The complainant has identified the phrase ‘sucks arse’ in the complaint. In the context of this broadcast, the term has been used by the judge to indicate that the comedy routine performed by the contestant was bad. It appears that the phrase ‘sucks arse’ has been used in much the same way that ‘that sucks’ would be used. The ACMA considers that the phrase is a variation of commonly used slang and that it can be accommodated at the PG classification. In this regard, the laughter from audience members in response to the judge’s comment is noted. The remark was not made in an aggressive manner and the licensee’s submission that it was made to alleviate tension due to the contestant’s poor performance appears to be accurate.

Issue 2: Complaints handling

Relevant provisions

The Code contains the following provisions that are relevant in the matter raised by the complainant:

SECTION 7: HANDLING OF COMPLAINTS TO LICENSEES

[...]

Scope

7.2The main requirements of this Section apply to any complaint about a matter covered by the Code which:

7.2.1is received by a licensee, or lodged in accordance with clause 7.5.3, not more than 30 days after the relevant broadcast;

7.2.2is in the form specified in Clause 7.5, and

7.2.3identifies in sufficient detail:

7.2.3.1the material broadcast (including by reference, if possible, to the date and time of broadcast of the material, or in the case of a television program series, the particular episode of the series the subject of the complaint):

7.2.3.2the nature of the complaint; and

7.2.3.3the identity of the complainant.

[...]

Time Limits on Responses to Code Complaints

7.11Subject to clause 7.15, a licensee must provide a substantive written response to a complaint that satisfies the requirements in clause 7.2.

[...]

Resolution of Complaints

7.15Licensees will make every reasonable effort to resolve Code complaints promptly, except where a complaint is clearly frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of the Code process.

[...]

Complainant’s submissions

On 15 February 2012, the complainant submitted to the ACMA that they had not received a response from the licensee.

Licensee’s submissions

On 15 March 2012, the licensee submitted to the ACMA that:

We note the complainant’s letter is addressed to Seven’s Manager at our Melbourne office. All complaints received by Channel Seven Melbourne are handled by Seven’s Programming department in Melbourne and a copy of all incoming correspondence is kept on file. Having made further enquiries with Seven’s Programming department in Melbourne and also with Seven’s Managing Director in Melbourne we can confirm that Seven has no record of receiving the complainant’s letter.

Finding

The ACMA finds that Channel Seven Melbourne Pty Ltd did not breach clause 7.11 of the Commercial Television Code of Practice 2010.

Reasons

The complainant has provided the ACMA with a copy of their letter to the licensee and whilst it has been correctly addressed, the licensee has submitted that it has no record of receiving the complaint. In these circumstances, where it cannot be established that the complaint was actually received by the licensee, the ACMA cannot find a breach in relation to the complaints handling provisions of the Code.

The ACMA will, however, monitor the licensee’s performance against the complaints handling provisions of the Code.

ACMA Investigation Report – Australia’s Got Amazing Talentbroadcast by HSVon 15November2011 1

[1] accessed 8 March 2012

[2] accessed 3 April 2012

[3]The complaint incorrectly identified the program as The X Factor.