In his revealing interview with Barrie Cassidy yesterday, Malcolm Turnbull confirmed what Crikey reported on Friday — that the current investigation into Q&A being undertaken by Turnbull’s own bureaucrats is unprecedented and far beyond what Richard Alston did in his attack on the ABC in 2003.
“But you are the first Communications Minister, I think, in the ABC’s history to send government officials into the ABC to investigate what was an editorial judgement,” Cassidy said to Turnbull.
“Well that may be the case,” Turnbull admitted, but then tried to argue “we’re not questioning the editorial judgement”.
In fact, the rather bald terms of reference for the inquiry make clear that it is the ABC’s editorial judgement that is exactly what is being questioned. The investigation to be conducted by Turnbull’s bureaucrats will look at:
• The context in which Zaky Mallah appeared on Q&A, including his previous engagement with the ABC;
• The decision-making process for Mallah’s appearance; and
• The decision-making process for the subsequent re-broadcast of the Q&A episode.
If Turnbull seriously thinks that isn’t investigating the ABC’s editorial judgement, he’s remarkably ignorant for a minister in charge of the ABC and supposedly maintaining its independence. But then, throughout the life of this government, Turnbull has always liked to walk both sides of the street on such matters.
The Minister for Communications likes to leave some room between himself and Tony Abbott, as if he’s in the Abbott government, but not of it. But whatever he might tell himself, this unprecedented attack shows he is completely and utterly a government man.
You pick a fine point to attack Turnbull over. Cassidy and you are arguing that the decision to let Mallah into the live audience with no security check was an editorial decision that Turnbull should stay out of.
I guess if you take a very narrow interpretation of editorial independence and add some mirrors and a few puffs of editorial smoke, it might look like that.
To most of us, it looks like a gratuitous stuff up that the ABC, through Cassidy, was defending as late as yesterday.
If you accept that Mallah’s presence amidst lax security was merely an editorial decision the rest of us are quite entitled to criticise it for the rank stupidity it was and Turnbull, as the Minister responsible, quite entitled to find out how such a stuff up was allowed to occur.
Editorial independence is not independence from scrutiny.
Given that staff members at the ABC have been threatened and security has needed to be increased , you’d think Turnbull would want to appear on Q and A and take a centrist calming stance. By boycotting the program he is simply kicking the can down a very dangerous road.
To be perfectly honest, if I wanted to start a Cronulla-style race riot or encourage a right wing extremist to take violent action, I’d behave exactly like Abbott is doing. His flag waving symbolism, combined with a global narrative (death cults coming to get you) and mad media conspiracies (ABC isn’t on team Australia) is pretty much the same rhetoric that appears on every far right extremist web site. And there isn’t a calm voice coming from anywhere in the LNP.
Turnbull has accused Barrie Casidy of losing the plot. After jumping into bed with Abbott and his ridiculous commentary, there’s plenty of Australians who now realise that it’s Malcolm who has truly lost the plot.
There were a few Editorial decisions made here
1. Should Mullah ask a question?
2. If yes, should Mullah be included in the audience or ask his question over video link?
3. If in the audience, should Mullah have been subject to a security screen before being allowed in the audience?
People seem to be only focussed on the first question, where as the later two are just as relevant from a security point of view, especially considering his history.
Turnbull is justified in investigating all aspects here.
@Scott
Mallah asked a perfectly reasonable question and there was no evidence that he was a security risk – and he wasn’t.
Ciobo upped the temperature by giving a personalised answer. A Government member should answer in terms of the law (or proposed law) and how it applies generally, theoretically how it might apply in Mallah’s case and what might be taken into consideration in making any decision. MPs should not get into insulting the questioner.
What security problem was there Scott? Who was hurt? Ciobo was clueless and still is. Mallah was convicted of a fairly minor event. Try this on. Last year an environmental inspector was murdered in cold blood in northern NSW. The National Party and farmer lobby groups have gone almost to the point of saying it was all right because they don’t like the rules he was enforcing.
They have had no public scrutiny. If they said that about an ASIO officer they would be charged with something.
We seem to have forgotten that Mallah’s pronouncements have been anti IS and anti going there to fight for them. He was fighting against Syria at a time when the whole free world was saying Assad had to go and via the Saudis pouring in guns and money. We also need to remember that Turnbull is a slippery, smart arse lawyer by nature and a former merchant banker who also belonged to that well known creator of calamity Goldman Sachs. No bias in him.