James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers given by the Minister representing the Minister for Communications (Senator McAllister) to a question without notice asked by Senator Henderson today relating to public broadcasting.

It's very important that we have a discussion about the ABC and it's very important that we understand the failure of the minister, over three questions, to adequately respond to the questions put by Senator Henderson. Indeed, Senator McAllister's first answer went for the grand sum of 15 seconds. Latter answers went for slightly longer but contained a lot less information for answers to the questions. It is very important that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, which is funded by the taxpayers of Australia—it's not a private company; it's a taxpayer funded national or state broadcaster.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is governed by Commonwealth legislation.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Hughes. It's governed by legislation that's gone through this parliament. It is important that it upholds the standards which it requests other people to uphold. The ABC is becoming one of these organisations which operates along the mantra, 'Do as I say but not as I do.' The ABC is becoming one of these organisations who are falling into the trap of failing to uphold standards, because the standards that you walk past are the standards that you accept. It is disappointing that the many good people who do work for the ABC across Australia are being let down by the management, by the board and by those who are failing to act ethically when it comes to the treatment of our fellow Australians.

If it comes to a choice between taking the words of our veterans, those men and women who have put their lives at risk to defend the freedoms that define this country, or taking the ABC at its word, every single time I will take the word of our veterans. I will take the word of those men and women who are about service, about belief in this country and about putting their lives on the line.

Heston Russell—someone who did stand at the last election in Queensland against my own party, so he's not a supporter of the Liberal National Party—is one of those people who has put his life on the line. He is someone who has done things, along with many other men and women who serve this country, so people in this chamber and in that gallery can sleep safe at night. He has gone overseas. He has defended freedom. He has fought for all that is good and right.

But what do we have with the ABC? We had the ABC defame him. Indeed, the ABC had to settle—actually they didn't settle. Mr Russell sued the ABC in the Federal Court for defamation and was awarded $390,000 in damages. The ABC went out of their way to defame a special forces commando, someone who has defended the freedoms that the journalists employed by the ABC ironically used to then defame him. It wasn't just a good old-fashioned defamation; it was clearly, I want to say, a conspiracy to libel and defame Mr Russell. There was a conspiracy to doctor the number of shots that could be heard in an audio recording.

That is why it is so disappointing that, when questions were put to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications in this chamber, asking whether the minister will condemn the actions of the ABC, the minister failed to do so. We have a Labor Party in power who are running a protection racket for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. We have a Labor Party in power who are refusing to condemn the actions of the ABC in relation to the doctoring of an audio recording. We have a minister and a Labor Party who are more than happy to allow the ABC to have a leave pass to continue with their actions.

The ABC is funded by the taxpayers of this country. It is funded to the tune of $1.1 billion. We deserve better from the ABC, but we also deserve a lot better from the ministers in their answers in this chamber.

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also seek to take note of those answers from the minister. The answers from the minister were very clear. In relation to the ABC, the ABC is independent, and that is really important. It is really important that the ABC has independence. It's enshrined in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act, and it's an important safeguard that ensures that the ABC's decisions are free from political interference.

I read the ABC from time to time. I don't always agree with its reporting of our government or the decisions that we make, but the ABC is independent and able to make those independent decisions. They are also not above scrutiny. They absolutely should be scrutinised and they are. From time to time, quite often, for hours on end, they are scrutinised by this parliament about their editorial decisions and the actions that they take. As was referred to today, an investigation will take place into the program that was referred to in question time.

But the reason that those opposite ask these questions about the ABC and infer that somehow the ABC should not be independent or should not be funded is because they have a deep-seated hatred for the idea that we should have a funded free broadcaster in this country. They want to sell, privatise and cut the ABC and, every time they get into government, they have a really good go at it. They cut the ABC and they try to sell it. This is something they are really up front about. They put motions through their conferences, probably sponsored by Senator McGrath or others, from time to time because they want to sell the ABC. It's not about what's good for Australians; it's about what's good for the pre-selectors of the Liberal-National Party. It's about appealing to their base and trying to stake out a culture war about what the future of the ABC looks like.

But what they don't include in those debates when they propose selling off the ABC is how important ABC is, particularly to regional communities, like the one that I live in, and the important role the ABC place

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hughes, on a point of order?

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My point of order is on relevance. The motion to take note was about the question asked of the minister regarding to the Heston Russell matter. No-one asked a question about selling the ABC.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hughes, it is not a debate.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have to talk about the issue.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, the member is relevant because in take note we are discussing the efficacy of the ABC. Senator Green.

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Deputy President. I was talking about the plans from the Liberal-National Party to sell off the ABC, because we understand the context of the questions they ask. Anyone can see through the context of the questions that they ask. But what they don't talk about is the very important role the ABC plays in regional communities like the one that I live in, and I wish that they would talk about it more. Because, particularly during summer when it comes to cyclones, floods or bushfires, the ABC plays an incredibly important role. Everyone in our regional community relies on and turns to the ABC when there is an emergency. We rely on the ABC to give us the most up-to-date information, particularly in those emergencies. Often, in a regional community like the one I live in and the ones that I represent, the ABC can be the only form of news, of scrutiny of politicians.

The ABC comes to the press conferences that I hold in regional Queensland and they ask me questions as well. It's an important role that they play, particularly in our regions, but those opposite don't want to talk about that. They want to talk about and make the case for reducing the ABC's independence, for reducing the funds for the ABC and for ultimately selling off the ABC. It has always been their plan, and that's why they ask questions like this.

It is really important that we uphold the independence of the ABC. We are not always going to agree with what they print, we are not always going to agree with what they say, but it is very important that they are independent. If those opposite have a different policy position that they are going to put forward at the next election to change the ABC Act to make it less independent, to cut the ABC, to sell it off, then say that, be up front with the Australian people. When it comes to the cuts you are planning at the next election, the $315 billion of cuts you are planning, be up front. When it comes to the IR changes you are planning and selling off the ABC, be up front with the Australian people about what you are planning to do.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I almost feel sorry for those who have to come in here and respond to take note motions on behalf of their ministers because that answer given by Minister McAllister didn't even last to the end of question time before she had to come in and clarify it. I've got to ask the question: what kind of lack of moral compass is held by those opposite? It is clear that an Australian veteran has been defamed—already proven, with a nice big settlement from the ABC on the Australian taxpayers' dime—because they showed falsified vision and soundtracks. And it was not only once—they didn't only do it in Mark Willacy's report. It has been demonstrated today that 7.30 weren't happy with taking it from one gunshot to six gunshots. Oh no, that wasn't enough for them; that wasn't enough of a lie for them to tell. They had to make it 12 gunshots. So the question asked today was not about the independence of the ABC, it was not about the funding of the ABC and it was not about any of the other straws that Senator Green was clutching at.

When she talked about regional reporting, I can say, as an old Moree girl—somewhere we used to get quite adverse weather—we did have the ABC. What I can tell you is that I wanted that reporting to be factual. I didn't want them to say, 'Oh, there's going to be a hailstorm this afternoon,' when there was going to be a light sprinkle. We needed factual reporting, but now the ABC is not held to those standards by those opposite. Truth in journalism is a concept they don't understand, with the great irony that they're now trying to put up a bill around mis- and disinformation, and somehow the minister will be responsible for determining that.

We now see a government that is clearly bereft of a moral compass that thinks that blatantly lying about an Australian veteran is acceptable and should be defended in this chamber, rather than condemned. We know that it's pathetic because clearly Minister Rowland has been on the phone, saying: 'Oh no! Quick, get in there. I did actually ask for a briefing because this is unacceptable.' Well done to Michelle Rowland! At least, I hope, she has some understanding of that compass. Even Maurice Newman, the former Chair of the ABC, has called them 'a self-serving collective' and 'the shameless megaphone of the Left'. That's why those opposite will never dare utter a word against their friends at the ABC because it is their taxpayer funded cheer squad. And, let me tell you that, as we enter an election season, they need all their buddies at the ABC to be on board.

I do want to mention that Heston Russell is a very dear friend of mine. In fact I spoke to him the other night to see how he was going. There will be lots who will tell you that they're good friends of his, but I was the only politician who provided him with an affidavit in regard to his defamation suit. I did that because, talking to Heston, seeing him and hosting him at my house, I saw the damage that was being done to an Australian war hero by this vindictive campaign being led by the ABC—a campaign that those opposite have now dismissed as something more than a threat to the independence of the ABC. If the ABC can't govern itself to tell the truth, I'm starting to think that, somehow or other, they might have given up the right to some of that independence. They have no capability to tell the truth. They have no capability to abide by their own charter. They have no respect for the taxpayers—every single one of you here today—who fund not only all the management, the producers and the journalists but also the editors. And we know they'll be throwing one of them under a bus pretty soon because it won't be any of the senior journos or producers.

This is the opportunity for the new chair, Mr Williams, to come in and say, 'Enough is enough!' Stop wasting taxpayer dollars on Louise Milligan specials, on 7.30 reports, on every other Four Corners story that gets them through the courts. We know how much money they've cost. Heston Russell's case so far is at around $3½ million and now, with these latest two revelations of duplicity, it might just cost all of us—you, me and everyone else—a whole heap more. Those opposite need to hold journalism at the ABC to account and stop using independence as a smokescreen.

Lisa Darmanin (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wanted to take note of the question from Senator Ruston and then the answer by Minister Watt.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, the practice—

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sorry; you have to respond. That's the way take note works.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just leave it to the Deputy President. The current motion before the chamber is to take note of the answer by Senator McAllister to Senator Henderson, and so you're required to speak to that motion.

Lisa Darmanin (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's my second time, so I'm—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, it's okay.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Normally we take note of all answers—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hughes, the Senate is a constant learning experience for us all. Senator Darmanin, you have the call.

Lisa Darmanin (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can speak to this matter as well. I think in her supplementary answer Minister McAllister did directly go to some of the question that was asked by Senator Henderson. As Minister McAllister stated, the ABC has operational and editorial independence, which is extremely important. As has previously been mentioned, that independence is enshrined in the act, and it is an extremely important safeguard to ensure that the ABC's decisions are free from political interference.

The ABC is an important public institution. It provides free access for all Australians to independent news, and it's particularly important for regional communities—and Senator Green did touch on this—in times of emergency. We rely on the ABC, particularly people in the regions, for access to accurate, up-to-date information and to ensure they are safe in periods of emergency or natural disaster.

So we should continue to have confidence in the reporting by the ABC, but, as with any media organisation, the ABC doesn't always get it right. But the ABC is committed to continuous improvement, including through its complaint-handling process, and it does remain accountable to the parliament for its use of taxpayer funds through a range of accountability mechanisms, including annual reports, corporate plans, financial and performance audits and appearances before parliamentary committees, including Senate estimates, where the matter at hand, what Senator Ruston asked Minister McAllister about, has been canvassed. It does not mean that the ABC is above scrutiny. In fact, the legislation sets out that it is not above scrutiny. The ABC is accountable.

In terms of the specific matter of the defamation case that questions have been asked about today, the ABC's defence in the Russell defamation proceedings is a matter of public record, and I note that quite a bit of media reporting about it has emerged today. The ABC has previously answered questions on this matter at a Senate estimates committee, and I refer members to those proceedings.

In October 2023, the Federal Court handed down its decision in the defamation proceedings between Mr Heston Russell and the ABC and awarded damages and payment of legal costs to Mr Russell. It is important to note that the ABC, as an independent institution, is responsible for managing its own legal matters, including defamation claims and litigation. In relation to the program in question today, the ABC has removed the video and is further investigating the circumstances around how that audio occurred.

It's vitally important that we continue to support the ABC, support the ABC's independence, and understand that the ABC are investigating the circumstances of this matter and others and that they do remain accountable and subject to scrutiny where there are questions about their reporting. But also it is important to do this in a manner which is responsible and for those of us in this chamber to ask questions in a way that does not undermine the confidence of the public in our independent institution the ABC, to ensure that all Australians continue to have confidence in the reporting that's provided—that it is free, fair, unbiased and independent, because, as I said earlier, Australians rely on the ABC very much every day and they should continue to have confidence in its reporting.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I should say, the senator made a very good recovery. I've done exactly the same thing. We've all been there; don't worry. I don't agree with a lot of what you said, but it was a very good recovery!

The issue I have with the minister's response is that the minister referred to editorial independence. This is not a question of editorial independence; this was a situation where the audio in relation to a key piece of footage was altered. It was doctored so that it appeared through the audio that six shots had been fired in the relevant scenario, instead of one. That's what happened. It's hard to classify that as a mistake, and it's certainly, in my view, not something which could be classified as falling within the purview of editorial independence. Editorial independence, from my perspective, is that the government cannot dictate to the ABC what stories it should run, what the content of those stories should be or what the editorial opinion should be in relation to those stories, and that commercial entities can't dictate to the ABC or challenge its independence in that way, nor can non-government organisations or anyone else. That's what independence means.

But this is an issue of the audio being doctored in a particular case. I also say that this is in the context of the relevant individual, Mr Heston Russell, having been successful in his defamation claim and receiving a payout in October 2023 of $390,000. This was also a nine-day trial. I can tell you that, in a nine-day defamation trial with silks, the legal fees would have been north of $1 million—and that's taxpayers' money. Then we hear from the news editor yesterday that the news budget for the ABC is $311 million, and all this money has been spent on this defamation case, which they lost, in a situation where the judge said this:

There may be several reasons why this dispute resulted in expensive and protracted litigation, but one of them was the existence of a defensive mindset inhibiting a proper remedial response to criticism.

That's what the judge said. So the ABC has questions to answer. It's not a question of editorial independence; it's a question of standards, which we expect our national public broadcaster to uphold.

Question agreed to.