The ABC has handed to the Senate an internal review looking at bias in its election coverage. The public broadcaster objected to producing the report. This is chair Ita Buttrose’s letter to the Senate president explaining why.
10 December 2020
Dear Mr President
RE: Notion of Motion 934
On 9 December 2020, the Senate ordered that there be laid on the table by the minister representing the minister for communications, cyber safety and the arts, by no later than midday on 10 December 2020, the report by Kerry Blackburn (the “Blackburn Review”), commissioned by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), in relation to the ABC’s coverage of the 2019 election (the report).
While the ABC has chosen to produce the report in this instance, we do so while maintaining our strong objection against its production on public interest grounds. While it would be unproductive to canvass those complaints in full here, they are consistent with the grounds that appear below in support of a request for a non-publication order. We reserve our ability to take formal objections to similar motions should they occur in the future.
We enclose a copy of the report in compliance with the Senate’s order and request non-publication for the reasons given below. The managing director and I also wish to state our serious reservations that use of this Senate power will potentially create an unfortunate precedent undermining the ability of the ABC board to properly deliberate on governance matters in the future and the ABC’s statutory independence.
Request for non-publication
In accordance with the established procedures of the Senate in dealing with orders for the production of documents, the managing director, Mr David Anderson, and I ask that the report be received in camera, that is, that it not be further published beyond the Senate.
We raise three grounds in support of the non-publication of the report, outlined below.
First ground: interfering with the development of program material
The report was commissioned by the ABC board in accordance with its obligations under the Act. The report was one of a number commissioned by the ABC board. Two other reports were published — the iSentia Share-of-Voice report and the Election Coverage Review Committee report.
The report was commissioned by the ABC board to examine a small portion of the five weeks of election coverage to assess whether coverage in that Sample was accurate, reflecting an appropriate diversity of perspectives and duly impartial.
As the reviewer, Kerry Blackburn, noted the review is not a comprehensive analysis and was intended to give ABC editorial managers starting points for discussion.
The ABC board determined that it was deliberative material for program makers and should be used internally.
There is a public interest in the ABC being able to deliberate on and develop ideas for its program material in a confidential way. This places it on a par with other news media entities with whom it competes in an aggressively contested commercial environment.
The Parliament has recognised the force of this public interest by enacting a special exemption for the ABC from the disclosure of documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982. Under s 7 of that Act, read with Schedule 2 to the Act, the ABC is exempt from the operation of the FOI Act in relation to its program material. The Federal Court of Australia has confirmed that the exemption applies not only to program material itself (eg a recording of a program) but also information relating to program material (such as a complain about a program, or, as in this case, a review of a program or programs): Australian Boradcasting Corporation v The University of Technology, Sydney [2006] FCA 964.
The ABC’s exemption (unlike some others in the FOI Act) is not conditional upon a weighing of competing public interests. It is absolute. This serves to underline the emphatic nature of Parliament’s intention that the ABC be permitted to operate in a confidential way with respect to its program material.
To be clear, the ABC does not resist production to the Senate in this case. However the public interest identified above justifies an order that the publication be limited to the Senate.
The ABC’s purpose is to deliver valued services that reflect and contribute to Australian society, culture and identity. It does this primarily through its delivery of quality program material. It is in the public interest that the ABC be able to fulfil this important purpose. Public discussion of its internal deliberations on program material will hinder the free exchange of ideas about program material, and this is to the detriment of that public interest. For that reason, it is in the public interest that the Senate receive the report on an in camera basis.
Second ground: interfering with the proper workings of the ABC, including its board
As noted above, the report was prepared for the purpose of the board’s deliberations with respect to the ABC’s programming, both past and present. It was presented to the board and was the subject of discussion at a board meeting.
We are concerned that disclosure of this board paper will undermine the board’s ability to properly deliberate on governance matters in the future. It is a longstanding and well understood principle that the deliberations of boards are confidential, for the very same reason Cabinet deliberations are confidential, to allow robust debate between members to ensure the organisation they are responsible for is run in the best manner possible. The ABC board operates on this premise.
It is in the public interest that the ABC’s governance frameworks operate robustly and effectively. The confidentiality of the board’s deliberations is an important ingredient in making sure the board is as effective as possible. Reqauiring public disclosure of board materials undermines the governance framework, and thereby undermines the public interest in effective governance of the ABC.
We accept that on this occasion it is appropriate to comply with the Senate order. But for the reasons outline, again, this should be on an in camera basis.
Third ground: interference with the rights and interests of third parties
As a final matter, we note that the report contains a substantial amount of commentary on the contributions made to programs by third parties (such as guest panellists on television programs). In many cases the commentary reflects on those third parties directly and personally, such as commenting on whether those third parties contributed content of a particular quality or whether their contribution might be aligned with a particular political point of view. We are concerned that public disclosure of that commentary could be prejudicial to the rights and interests of those indicuviduals. That is contrary to the public interest in and or itself.
The ABC sought to manage this risk in the course of commissiong the report by asking that third parties not be named (which they are not). Nevertheless, given the report comments on published program material, the ABC believes that the individuals will still be readily identifiable by comparing the commentary in the report with the programs as broadcast.
It is in the interests of avoiding prejudice to the third parties, and consequent prejudice to the ABC’s future programming, that the Senate receive the report on an in camera basis.
Your consideration of our concerns is appreciated.
Yours sincerely
Ita Buttrose
Chair
ABC
If the Federal Government wants the ABC to stop “bias” in reporting against it, then perhaps Federal Government ministers should stop lying. That would give the ABC something factual to report on for a change.
Opinion is Free, Facts are Sacred.
Or scared witless by this mendacious government.
Honestly! It would have been a lot less misleading to give us the outcome of the review than Buttrose’s defence of it. The review concluded that the ABC met its required impartiality standard leading up to the 2019 election.
It surveyed the election coverage of only five (!) conversation programs shown the 2019 and and concluded that three of them lacked an equal number of voices advocating conservative policies and prospects. The fact that the great majority of journalists expected the conservative parties to lose would account for that.
Of course, the fact also that it might be difficult to find objective support for certain conservative views and policies e.g. climate science, might also be relevant.
Furthermore, its being a limited selection of a limited number of discussion programs conducted for internal evaluation explains why the ABC might be reluctant to release it.
The sort of misleading headlines that the mainstream press have given and Crikey’s reproduction of Buttrose’s letter without explanation of the nature of the survey nor of its actual findings suggests they were right to object.
Shame on Crikey for joining in the war on the ABC. I only check up these days to see how they manage to push a right wing view without alienating too many of their old subscribers and this article really takes the cake!
Also, conservatives are less likely to want to discuss issues. Their mindset is more inclined to just ‘believe’ and not to apply analysis.
The Grauniad notes that the complained of pro Labor comments were from fire breathing, raving Leftie Katherine Greiner.
Ordabe alorr agin it.
Just a note about State broadcasters: It’s often difficult to distinguish them. In my youth I lived as a foreign student in Soeharto-ruled Indonesia. Later back in Australia someone commented “It must have been terrible having to listen to all that propaganda.” No, there was hardly any. Radio Republik Indonesia knew what it could say and its news was factual. It just didn’t say what it couldn’t say. Now watch CGTN from Beijing or RT from Moscow. Their news is mainly factual but they leave out what they can’t say. Now try BBC and ABC. Their news is mainly factual but they leave out…yes, you’ve got it. You can find some of what they leave out by watching RT and vice versa. No, I’m not saying they’re equal – not yet – but as we get closer and closer to the surveillance state the gap is closing.
It’s amazing how quickly this Government will pressure the ABC for a report whilst week after week, month after month, year after year they refuse to produce reports which directly impact on people’s lives and our environment. If it is produced it is so heavily redacted it becomes worthless, or else they block or hold back as long as possible the FOI claims on reports. If the Government was more transparent then this bullying for a report from elsewhere would not seem so hypocritical
From the government who brought you sports rorts on steroids, infrastructure slush funds with a “By invitation only” set of guidelines and then lots more of our money being used for party purposes and all reports redacted.
This federal government is run by a man who justified leaving on holiday to Hawaii, without delegating his authority, in the middle of bush fires resulting in calamitous catastrophes in 3 states by simply stating “I don’t hold a hose”.
The sheer hypocrisy of the leader of our government who oversaw the searches of journalist’s homes and the head office of the ABC in a vain attempt to suppress the alleged Afghan war crimes Go Pro footage has more front than Meyer’s.
Here’s a bet, if it is supportive in any way of accusations of bias in the ABC, a copy will be leaked within days.
If it is not supportive on the accusation of bias it will be “It’s confidential, you know and we respect the ABC’s independence”.
Ha Ha Ha! The good old Magna Carta is now in play regarding the refugees in detention.
I was wondering how long was going to take to re-surface.
Scottie from marketing is so wishing everyone can just go home so that his Christmas isn’t ruined.