Referral
1.1
On 16 November 2017, the Senate, on the recommendation of the Selection
of Bills Committee, referred the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Fair
and Balanced) Bill 2017 (the bill) to the Senate Environment and Communications
Legislation Committee (the committee) for inquiry and report by 9 February
2018.[1]
1.2
On 12 February 2018, the Senate granted an extension of time to report
until 16 February 2018.[2]
Purpose of the bill
1.3
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) is Australia's primary
publicly funded national broadcaster. Established under the Australian
Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 (ABC Act), it provides broadcast and
digital media services to diverse social, cultural and geographic audiences
across Australia.[3]
1.4
The ABC provides news and information services of the highest standard
to domestic audiences. It also delivers international media services which
offer an Australian perspective to the Asia-Pacific region, and which help
connect Australians living and working abroad.[4]
1.5
Section 6 of the ABC Act establishes the functions of the ABC through a
Charter while section 7 establishes the Board of the ABC and section 8 details
the duties of the Board.
1.6
The bill proposes to amend section 8 of the ABC Act to modify and expand
the existing statutory duty of the Board to ensure the gathering and
presentation of news and information is accurate and impartial according to the
recognised standards of objective journalism. As such, the bill proposes to
expand this duty to require the gathering and presentation of news and
information to be 'fair' and 'balanced' according to the recognised standards
of objective journalism.[5]
1.7
As noted in the Explanatory Memorandum (EM), the ABC, as a publicly
funded broadcaster, is expected to canvass a broad range of issues, and to
report on these issues in a fair and balanced manner. Further, there is a
strong public interest in ensuring that Australians are able to have confidence
in relying on the ABC to inform their views on significant issues.[6]
1.8
The EM also states that introducing a statutory requirement for the ABC
to be fair and balanced 'will support and strengthen the ABC's reputation for
providing trustworthy and dependable reporting'. The EM acknowledges that the
ABC's Editorial Policies already cover 'fair treatment' as well as having a
balance that follows the weight of evidence. However, the bill proposes to
'cement these requirements in the ABC's Charter and ensure the ABC continues to
uphold the standards expected of it by the Australian public'.[7]
1.9
The proposed amendment will create a legislative requirement for the
ABC Board to ensure that any news or information relating to a particular
person or group is presented in a fair and balanced manner, ensuring that an
impartial view, supported by evidence, is put forward. It would not however,
require that every perspective of an issue be granted equal time, nor every
facet of an argument be explored.[8]
1.10
In his second reading speech, the Minister for Communications, Senator
the Hon Mitch Fifield, noted that 'it is important to recognise that the bill
will not alter or diminish in any way the ABC's independence'. Rather, the
bill:
...will support and strengthen the ABC's reputation for
providing trustworthy and dependable news and information services, and ensure
the organisation upholds the standards expected of it by the Australian public.[9]
Conduct of the inquiry
1.11
The committee advertised the inquiry on its website and wrote to
relevant organisations inviting written submissions. The date of receipt of
submissions was 12 January 2018.
1.12
The committee received nine submissions which are listed at Appendix 1
of this report. The public submissions are available on the committee's website
at: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications.
1.13
The committee thanks all of the individuals and organisations that
contributed to the inquiry.
Reports of other committees
1.14
When examining a bill or draft bill, the committee takes into account
any relevant comments published by the Senate Standing Committee for the
Scrutiny of Bills. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee assesses legislative
proposals against a set of accountability standards that focus on the effect of
proposed legislation on individual rights, liberties and obligations, and on
parliamentary propriety.
1.15
In its Scrutiny Digest No. 13 of 2017, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee
stated that it had no comment on the bill.[10]
Support for the bill
1.16
Those submitters who expressed support for the bill noted that there is
an expectation that journalism is 'accurate and impartial, and free of
political motivation', particularly where this journalism is publicly funded.[11]
The National Farmers' Federation submitted that:
...the NFF supports extending the statutory duties of the ABC
Board to also require the gathering and presentation of news and information to
be 'fair' and 'balanced' according to the recognised standards of objective
journalism.[12]
1.17
It was noted that the bill does not change the ABC's existing editorial
policies, rather it creates a new statutory duty for the ABC Board. Those
supporting this approach raised concerns with some aspects of current ABC
reporting. For example, submissions drew the attention of the committee to some
reports produced by the ABC, such as the 4 Corners episode titled Pumped,
and contended that these had not been impartial.[13]
1.18
Cotton Australia also noted the important role that the ABC plays in
Australia, particularly in rural and regional Australia where it 'keeps people
connected and informed which is vital to a healthy social fabric'. It further
noted that the ABC has a number of 'longstanding, valued rural programs...which
remain relevant and high quality news sources'.[14]
Issues raised in submissions
1.19
The committee received some submissions which expressed concern with the
bill. In particular, submitters expressed a view that the bill is unnecessary, noting
that existing ABC Editorial Policies already require fair and honest dealing in
reporting. Submitters also expressed concern that the bill may have unintended
consequences such as creating a 'false balance' or 'he said/she said
journalism'.[15]
1.20
Other issues raised included that the bill does not establish a compliance
mechanism to scrutinise whether the news services of the ABC are indeed fair
and balanced.[16]
Existing requirements
1.21
In expressing a view that the bill is unnecessary, submitters noted that
the ABC is already required to report with 'accuracy and impartiality according
to the recognised standards of objective journalism'. Further, the ABC's
Editorial Policies articulate the requirements for independence, integrity,
objectivity, and impartiality and 'fair and honest dealing'.[17]
1.22
It was noted that the ABC Act requires the ABC Board to develop a code
of practice relating to its television and radio programming. The ABC Code of
Practice establishes editorial standards for the gathering and reporting of
news and information, including standards for accuracy, impartiality and fair
and honest dealing. Section 4 of the ABC Code of Practice, 'Impartiality and
Diversity of Perspectives' establishes the standards expected of the ABC. It
also defines the 'principles of impartiality'. The ABC describes these 'hallmarks
of impartiality' as 'in accordance with the recognised standards of objective
journalism'.[18]
1.23
The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) submitted that the
ABC's current Editorial Policies 'exceed, in scope and length, any other known
editorial policies covering Australian media organisations' and 'recognise all
necessary professional journalistic standards'.[19]
1.24
The ABC submitted that if the intention of the bill is 'to do nothing
more than enshrine' the requirements of the ABC's Editorial Policies, then 'the
change to the legislation will do nothing more than describe what the ABC
already does'. It concluded that 'in the ABC's view, that is no argument to
make the change – it is, in fact, an argument not to make the change as it adds
nothing of substance'.[20]
1.25
The ABC also expressed concern that the bill 'manifestly risk[s]
creating expectations or misleading the public into believing that the change
to the ABC Act will impose new statutory requirements on the ABC that have not
previously existed'.[21]
Implementation
1.26
A number of submitters expressed concern that the proposed amendments to
the ABC Act would be difficult to implement and enforce. In particular, it
was noted that concepts of fairness and balance are subjective and without
context or explanation as to how these requirements should be implemented,
there may be unintended consequences such creating 'false balance'.
1.27
Australian Democrats (Queensland Division) Incorporated submitted that though
the requirement for fair and balanced news is a 'laudable objective', 'the
notion of fairness can be notoriously subjective'.[22]
It questioned what criteria would be used in determining fairness, and who
would be responsible for such a determination. It also submitted that 'the
notion of balance may be equally problematic' and questioned whether 'fringe
groups with little scientific or intellectual support' would be able to 'demand
equal coverage from the ABC on any issue'.[23]
1.28
MEAA noted that though the MEAA Journalistic Code of Ethics recommends
that journalists do their 'utmost to give a fair opportunity for reply', the
Code has never mentioned 'balance as an ethical requirement'.[24]
It submitted that there is a difference between the 'right of reply' and
'balance' and stated that:
Balance assumes that multi-faceted discussion is taking place
and that, despite the merits of some parts of the discussion and the
unworthiness of other parts, each and every side must be given equal measure.[25]
1.29
MEAA concluded that 'requiring journalists to apply balance may compel
them to apply a distorting emphasis to irrelevant, non-newsworthy material that
is not factually based'.[26]
Similarly, the ABC submitted that in understanding the notion of objective
journalism, 'balance' must be separated from 'false balance'. That is:
...editorial balance does not require the inclusion of all
perspectives all the time and it does not require equal time to be provided to
all views. Nor does it operate independently of the balance of evidence, the
weight of opinion, the underlying facts and the need for editorial judgement.[27]
1.30
The ABC expressed concern that the bill could give rise to the situation
where 'a range of unfiltered, unassessed
opinions are all given equal weight and served to audiences without context,
explanation or appropriate rigour'.[28]
1.31
Similarly, Mr Darryl Fallow expressed concern that while impartial news
reporting requires balance, this balance should follow the weight of evidence
as 'truth, accuracy and objectivity in reporting [carries] more weight than
"balance" alone'.[29]
Mr Mark Zanker questioned whether 'discredited views [should] be given
equal time...in the name of balance'.[30]
Committee view
1.32
The ABC is Australia's primary publicly funded national broadcaster.
Over many decades it has played an important role in dependably presenting
reliable and trustworthy news and information to the community. The Australian
people expect a publicly funded broadcaster to canvass a broad range of issues,
and report on those issues in a fair and balanced manner.
1.33
The committee notes the Minister's comments that the bill will not alter,
or diminish, in any way the ABC's independence and will not alter the existing standards
expected of the ABC. The Minister particularly noted that the ABC's existing Editorial
Policies already require the ABC to adhere to fair treatment in the gathering
and presentation of news and information, and a balance in its news reporting
that follows the weight of evidence. As such, the bill simply enshrines these
obligations in legislation.[31]
The committee is of the view that this acknowledges the importance of ensuring
that reporting by the ABC is, and remains, independent, impartial, and fair and
balanced.
1.34
In addition, the Committee considers that enshrining a statutory
requirement for fair and balanced reporting in the ABC Act will promote
community confidence in the news and information presented by the ABC. It will
ensure that the community will continue to turn to the ABC as an important
source of information which can be relied upon to inform views on significant
public issues. As such, the committee is of the view that there is a strong
public interest in amending the ABC Act as proposed.
1.35
The committee notes the concerns raised in submissions that the bill may
result in 'false balance' in ABC reporting. However, the committee reiterates
that the bill does not create new editorial requirements and simply enshrines
existing policies in legislation. The committee notes that this obligation will
sit alongside the existing requirement that the ABC's news services are
'accurate and impartial according to the recognised standards of objective
journalism'.
Recommendation 1
1.36
The committee recommends that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment
(Fair and Balanced) Bill 2017 be passed.
Senator Jonathon Duniam
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page