Investigation report no. BI-198
Summary /File no. / BI-198 /
Broadcaster / Australian Broadcasting Corporation /
Station / ABC1 /
Type of service / National broadcasting—television /
Name of program / The Drum /
Date of broadcast / 26 and 27 April 2016 /
Relevant code / Standards 4.2 and 4.5 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (revised in 2016) /
Date finalised / 15 July 2016 /
Decision / No breach of standards 4.2 and 4.5 [impartiality] /
Background
In June 2016 the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) commenced an investigation under section 151 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (the BSA) into The Drum broadcast on ABC1 by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (the ABC) on 26 and 27 April 2016.
The ACMA received a complaint alleging that the programs on 26 and 27 April 2016 were biased and lacked a diversity of perspectives.
The ACMA has investigated the ABC’s compliance with standards 4.2 and 4.5 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (revised in 2016) (the Code).
The program
The Drum is a daily news analysis program broadcast Monday to Friday on ABC1 at 5.30 pm and on ABC News 24 at 6.30pm. The program features a host and a panel of guests who discuss current topics of interest.
The programs broadcast on 26 and 27 April 2016 were hosted by Ms Julia Baird. On both days the programs included discussion of a Papua New Guinea (PNG) Supreme Court decision that detention of asylum seekers on Manus Island was unconstitutional.
Excerpts of the relevant discussions of 26 and 27 April 2016 are at Attachment A.
Assessment and submissions
When assessing content, the ACMA considers the meaning conveyed by the material, including the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone, images and any inferences that may be drawn. 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.[1]
Once the ACMA has ascertained the meaning of the material that was broadcast, it then assesses compliance with the Code.
The investigation takes into account relevant submissions from the complainant (Attachment B) and the ABC (Attachment C).
Relevant Code provisions
Standard 4.2
Present a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented.
Standard 4.5
Do not unduly favour one perspective over another.
The Code requires that standard 4 is interpreted and applied in accordance with the relevant principles, which 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 ABC did not breach standards 4.2 and 4.5 of the Code.
Reasons
On 26 April 2016 the program included the following panellists:
· Peter Lewis, director of Essential Media Communications (EMC), a public affairs and research company specialising in campaigning for social and political organisations
· Annabel Crabb, ABC political journalist and presenter
· Denis Dragovic, Adjunct Lecturer in International Development, University of Melbourne.
The segment dealing with the PNG Supreme Court decision included brief interviews with PNG lawyer, Mr Ben Lomai, and the leader of the Australian Greens, Senator Richard Di Natale. It also included a lengthy interview by Ms Baird and the panellists with Mr Daniel Webb of the Human Rights Law Centre.
They discussed the PNG Supreme Court ruling and the PNG Government’s announcement that detention must cease. It was noted the issue was a contested political issue in PNG. The legal issues in the decision were explained and the response of the Immigration Minister, the Hon Peter Dutton MP, was reported; the detainees would not be coming to Australia.
On 27 April 2016 the panellists were:
· Dr Adam Creighton, economics correspondent for The Australian newspaper
· Heather Ewart, ABC journalist specialising in rural and regional reporting
· Prof Kerryn Phelps, general practitioner and former President of the Australian Medical Association
· Ben Oquist, Executive Director of the Australia Institute.
In the relevant segment the host referred to the PNG Supreme Court decision and the PNG Prime Minister’s announcement that he would be asking the Australian Government to make alternative arrangements for Manus Island detainees. The segment included footage from the Immigration Minister’s press conference in which he stated that people on Manus Island and Nauru would not ever settle in Australia.
The panel discussed the impact of the PNG Supreme Court decision, the welfare of asylum seekers in detention and the Government’s policy on asylum seekers and off-shore detention.
The complaint is that The Drum panellists were pro-illegal immigration, and the only person who spoke in favour of the Government’s policy was the Immigration Minister.
Whether a breach of the Code has occurred will depend on the themes in the program, any editorial comment, the overall presentation of the story and the circumstances in which the program was prepared and broadcast.
Achieving impartiality requires a broadcaster to present material in a way which avoids conveying a prejudgment, or giving effect to the affections or enmities of the presenter, who plays a key role in setting the tone of the program, through their style and choice of language.
A program that presents a perspective that is opposed by a particular person or group is not inherently partial. Impartiality does not require that every perspective receives equal time, nor that every facet of every issue is presented.
The ABC is entitled to explore issues of controversy, as long as the hallmarks of impartiality are met; namely, that there is 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.
The ACMA has noted in previous matters that the composition of a panel will not necessarily indicate bias, particularly where a topic of debate covers a range of issues[2].
The ACMA accepts the ABC’s submission that the panel for The Drum is convened ahead of time with a view to ensuring a range of perspectives and its impartiality standards do not require panels to be evenly split across a political or other spectrum.
Contextual factors
The Drum is presented as a forum for the expression of opinions on topical news and current affairs. In this case, the discussion of offshore detention occurred as part of a wider discussion anchored by two news events: the ruling by the Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea that the detention centre on Manus Island was unconstitutional, and the statement by the PNG Prime Minister announcing the closure of the detention centre.
The PNG Supreme Court decision was a topical decision. As noted in the broadcast of 26 April 2016, the centre was a contested matter in PNG. The Australian Government’s policy concerning the detention of asylum seekers on Manus Island is also a matter of ongoing current debate in the Australian community.
The ACMA accepts the ABC’s submission that the topics of discussion were inherently newsworthy.
The segment of 26 April 2016 included reports of the decision and interviews with a PNG lawyer and the leader of the Australian Greens. Although the panel discussion referred to the Hon Peter Dutton’s statement that asylum seekers would not be coming to Australia, it was mainly focussed on the legal issues and the impact of the decision.
The interviewee, Daniel Webb’s position was that asylum seekers should be re-settled in Australia. However, his responses were framed around legal aspects of the PNG decision concerning findings about the liberties of asylum seekers, whether there was an avenue of appeal and the steps the Australian Government must take in response to the decision.
The segment of 27 April 2016, focussed on the Australian Government’s position that asylum seekers would not be settled in Australia. The panel discussion followed the statements of the Immigration Minister. In response to the question of the likely outcome for the Manus Island detainees, each of the panellists expressed differing views and perspectives.
One of the panellists, Adam Creighton, was supportive of the Government’s policy. While one other panellist, Ben Oquist, argued for offshore detention to end, the two remaining panellists confined their comments to addressing humanitarian issues and the need to abide by the laws of other countries. In the panel discussion principal perspectives on the arguments for and against offshore detention were expressed.
Hallmarks of impartiality
The PNG Supreme Court decision and Australian Government and Australian Greens responses were factually reported and it is not claimed that the views of lawyers, politicians and interviewees were misrepresented. The ACMA accepts the ABC’s submissions that the panels on The Drum on 26 and 27 April 2016 represented a diversity of perspectives and professional backgrounds. The illegality and future closure of the Manus Island detention centre was only one of several topics covered in the programs on which the panellists commented.
The discussion was appropriately framed over the two days with statements by a PNG constitutional lawyer, the PNG Prime Minister, Immigration Minister Peter Dutton, Australian Greens leader Richard di Natale, and an interview with Daniel Webb from the Human Rights Law Centre. In this way the balance of the programs followed the weight of evidence.
Ms Baird’s tone was neutral but probing and she did not express a personal opinion on the issues raised. The panellists expressed strong views both for and against offshore detention, including that ‘it doesn’t work’, ‘it’s completely inhumane’, ‘it saved thousands of lives’, was ‘a great success’, and that if it was abolished, ‘the floodgates would open again’. The host allowed for these expressions, and asked questions in an enquiring, measured way, displaying fair treatment and open mindedness.
The Code does not require that all perspectives on an issue be broadcast nor that principal perspectives be given within a single program. The ACMA accepts the ABC’s submissions that over time, it provided a principal relevant perspectives on the issue of the PNG Supreme Court ruling and the Australian Government’s response, as set out at Attachment C.
The programs of 26 April 2016 and 27 April 2016 provided a balance that followed the weight of evidence, they displayed fair treatment and open mindedness, and principal relevant perspectives on matter of contention were expressed in an appropriate time frame.
Accordingly, the ABC did not breach standards 4.2 and 4.5 of the Code.
Attachment A
Excerpt transcript of The Drum, broadcast on 26 April 2016 on ABC1
Julia Baird: Unconstitutional and in breach of personal liberty - detaining asylum seekers on Manus Island declared illegal by the Papua New Guinea Supreme Court […]
Papua New Guinea’s Supreme Court has found the detention of asylum seekers on Manus Island breaches the country’s constitution and must cease forthwith. There are 850 men in that detention centre on Manus Island, about half of whom have been found to be refugees. The courts order the PNG and Australian Governments to immediately take steps to stop detaining asylum seekers. The lawyer who helped advance the constitutional challenge says that probably means the asylum seekers will no longer be able to be kept on Manus Island.
The Immigration Minister Peter Dutton has released a statement saying Australia was not a party to the legal proceedings, and those in detention at Manus Island will not be coming to Australia. It’s a comment the Greens leader has called disgraceful.
Excerpt transcript of The Drum, broadcast on 27 April 2016 on ABC1
Julia Baird: Manus Island to close - with Papua New Guinea to ask Australia to make alternative arrangements immediately. […]
The Manus Island detention centre will close. The Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, Peter O’Neill, announced the decision a day after the country’s Supreme Court found the centre to be unconstitutional. In a statement, the PM said PNG will immediately ask the Australian Government to make alternative arrangements for the asylum seekers currently held at the regional processing centre. He says those asylum seekers who were found to be legitimate refugees would be invited to stay if they want to. So what now for the 850 men remaining at the detention centre? Nauru remains open, of course, but just today a refugee there set himself on fire, in what the Nauruan Government has called a political protest. Before the announcement the Immigration Minister said those asylum seekers on Manus would not be coming to Australia.
Peter Dutton: The Government’s position is very clear. That is, we are not going to accept people that have sought to come to our country illegally by boat. If I can appeal now to those people who are on Nauru, or on Manus, you will not ever settle in Australia, and that has been the absolute determination of this Government from day one, and we are not going to deviate from that course. We’ll provide support to return people home.