Invest… · Web viewThe complainant submitted that the broadcast had contained inaccurate material, that factual material was indistinguishable from commentary or analysis and that

Investigation Report No. 3171

File no. ACMA2014/150

Licensee Harbour Radio Pty Ltd

Station 2GB

Type of service Commercial radio

Name of program Alan Jones Breakfast Show

Date of broadcast 21 November 2013

Relevant Code Clauses 2.2(a) and 2.3(a) of the Commercial Radio Australia Codes of Practice & Guidelines 2011

Date finalised 18 June 2014

Decision No breach of clause 2.2(a) [factual accuracy]No breach of clause 2.3(a) [distinguish factual material]

ACMA Investigation Report 3171 – The Alan Jones Breakfast Show broadcast by Harbour Radio Pty Ltd on 21 November 2013

1

The complaint

On 13 February 2014, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) commenced an investigation into a broadcast of the radio program The Alan Jones Breakfast Show, broadcast on 21 November 2013 by Harbour Radio Pty Ltd, the licensee of 2GB (the licensee).

The complainant submitted that the broadcast had contained inaccurate material, that factual material was indistinguishable from commentary or analysis and that the viewpoint of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) Managing Director, Mr Mark Scott, had been misrepresented.

The ACMA has considered the licensee’s compliance with clauses 2.2(a), 2.3(a) and 2.3(c) of the Commercial Radio Australia Codes of Practice & Guidelines September 2011 (the Code).

The programThe Alan Jones Breakfast Show is broadcast weekdays on 2GB from 5.30 am to 9.00 am. It is presented by Mr Alan Jones, who is described on the program’s website in the following terms:

Australia's most popular talkback presenter, Alan Jones is a phenomenon. He's described by many as the nation's greatest orator and motivational speaker. Alan has the mind and capacity to make complex issues understandable to the largest Breakfast audience in Australia.1

A substantial element of the program is talkback with listeners. The program also includes news, commentary by Mr Jones, discussions and interviews relating to current events.

On 21 November 2013, for 13 minutes Mr Jones discussed matters that had recently been published by both the ABC2 and British newspaper The Guardian,3 detailing that Australian intelligence agencies had attempted to monitor communications between high-ranking Indonesian officials.4 This had ostensibly occurred under the previous Rudd Government. The information had apparently been provided to The Guardian by former US Central Intelligence Agency employee and National Security Agency contractor, Edward Snowden.5

Mr Jones was critical of both the ABC and The Guardian for having published the information, arguing that it compromised national security. He also gave his views on the relationship between Australia and Indonesia, as well as on the role of intelligence agencies more generally.

Relevant extracts from the segment can be found at Attachment A.

1 http://www.2gb.com/shows/alan-jones-breakfast-show 2 http://www.abc.net.au/ 3 http://www.theguardian.com/au 4 See, for example, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-18/australia-spied-on-indonesian-president-

leaked-documents-reveal/5098860 and http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/18/australia-tried-to-monitor-indonesian-presidents-phone

5 Ibid


2

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/18/australia-tried-to-monitor-indonesian-presidents-phone

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/18/australia-tried-to-monitor-indonesian-presidents-phone

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-18/australia-spied-on-indonesian-president-leaked-documents-reveal/5098860

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-18/australia-spied-on-indonesian-president-leaked-documents-reveal/5098860

http://www.theguardian.com/au

http://www.abc.net.au/

http://www.2gb.com/shows/alan-jones-breakfast-show

Matters not pursuedThe complainant cited clause 2.3(c) of the Code in his complaint6, arguing that ‘the viewpoints expressed by Mr Alan Jones were misrepresented as the information supplied by Mark Scott to the committee was omitted from the broadcast’.

Clause 2.3(c) of the Code concerns the obligation to ensure that ‘viewpoints expressed to the licensee for broadcast are not misrepresented…’ As Mr Scott was not quoted or interviewed during the segment, the ACMA considers that the clause does not apply.

Accordingly, the ACMA has not included an assessment of clause 2.3(c) of the Code in this investigation report.

To the extent that Mr Scott’s viewpoint was represented during the broadcast, the ACMA has considered the accuracy of this representation at Issue 1 below.

AssessmentThis investigation is based on an audio recording of the broadcast provided by the licensee as well as submissions provided by both the licensee and complainant.

Other sources consulted are identified where relevant.

‘Ordinary, reasonable’ listener test

In assessing content against the Code, the ACMA considers the meaning conveyed by the relevant material. This is assessed according to the understanding of an ‘ordinary, reasonable’ listener.

Australian courts have considered an ‘ordinary, reasonable’ reader (or listener or 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 affairs7.

In considering compliance with the Code, the ACMA considers the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone, and any inferences that may be drawn. In the case of factual material which is presented, the ACMA will also consider relevant omissions (if any).

Once the ACMA has applied this test to ascertain the meaning of the material broadcast, it then determines whether or not that material has breached the Code.

Issue 1: Factual accuracy

Relevant Code clause2.2 (a) In the preparation and presentation of current affairs programs, a licensee must use

reasonable efforts to ensure that factual material is reasonably supportable as being accurate.

6 2.3(c) states: ‘In the preparation and presentation of current affairs programs a licensee must ensure that viewpoints expressed to the licensee for broadcast are not misrepresented and material is not presented in a misleading manner by giving wrong or improper emphasis or by editing out of context’.

7 Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 at pp 164–167.


3

In determining whether or not a statement complained about was factual material for the purposes of this provision, the ACMA takes into account the considerations set out at Attachment B.

Complainant’s submissionsThe complainant submitted the following:

Specifically, Alan Jones made the claim that the ABC and Mark Scott, the Managing Director of the ABC, had the information pertaining to the spying allegations before the 2013 election but withheld this information until after the 2013 federal election to favour the Labor Party.

However, it was widely reported in several newspapers on Wednesday, 20th November that Mr Mark Scott had informed the Parliamentary Communications Legislation Committee (the Committee) that the ABC had only received the information from the Guardian in the week beginning the 11th November. Alan Jones did not mention Mark Scott’s statement to the Committee. The strident manner and the number of times Mr Alan Jones repeated the statement that the ABC had withheld the information on the spying allegations would lead a reasonable listener to conclude that Mr Alan Jones was presenting factual information not just an opinion.

Licensee’s submissionsThe licensee’s submissions in relation to this clause can be found at Attachment C.

FindingThe licensee did not breach clause 2.2(a) of the Code.

ReasonsThe ACMA considers that much of what Mr Jones said in the segment were expressions of opinion. These included his remarks in support of Mr Abbott, the nature of Australia’s relationship with Indonesia and his views on the reasons for their spying and intelligence gathering.

The ACMA has identified the following material (including points repeated by Mr Jones in the segment) as being relevant to the complaint:

…the ABC has chosen to release and give oxygen to the stolen documents secured by a former CIA computer specialist Edward Snowden – stole the documents from the US National Security Agency, has leaked them to selected left-wing journalists, and now – and that includes stories of spying on 10 high-ranking Indonesian officials when Kevin Rudd was Prime Minister. And the ABC Managing Director Scott, who in my opinion should’ve been sacked yesterday, and I’ll keep arguing that he should be sacked, told a Parliamentary Communications Legislation Committee earlier this week that it was in the public interest. And this is the public interest now.

…It’s clear that those Snowden leaks, stolen information, were in possession of The Guardian newspaper for months. And the editor of The Guardian is mates with the Managing Director of the ABC Scott, who should be sacked. Alexander Downer said it was passing strange that the story was not run prior to the election campaign. But of course, had it been run, it would have embarrassed Kevin Rudd rather than Tony Abbott.

…The ABC and The Guardian have basically acted like pirates and compromised a massive chunk of our intelligence gathering against one of our critical priority targets. At the minimum, Scott, the head of the ABC, should be sacked. The Managing Director, he calls himself, of the ABC. And there should be a Federal Police criminal investigation into how the ABC and The


4

Guardian newspaper came into possession of these stolen materials and then decided to publish top secret documents. Those involved should be in prison.

… And this proves they’ll do anything – even publish stolen documents from a criminal CIA computer specialist, now a fugitive, hiding in Russia, and then white-ant Abbott and his government on the asylum-seeker issues and compromise our whole intelligence-gathering structure.

The Labor Party’s behaviour on this, the authors of the problem, their behaviour is beyond contemptible. But for the national broadcaster to justify the publication of these stolen documents borders on the treasonous. As I said yesterday, treason is the violation, by a subject, of allegiance to the nation. There are any number of defence and intelligence personnel who are fuming at the ABC’s involvement in this treason, and are arguing that Scott, the boss of the ABC, should be sacked immediately. No-one appointed Scott, or the ABC, to be in charge of disclosing intelligence information…

…

Alan Jones – Scott should be sacked as the Managing Director of the ABC, and we now need a national enquiry as to how they got hold of the documents, and why they did what they did with them.

Caller 1 – Alan, as I say, they’ve got no option but to do that. A crime has been committed, and as part of Tony Abbott’s oath of office, he’s gotta protect Australia and all of its secrets, whatever it does.

Alan Jones – Yeah, I mean, as I said to you, and let me repeat, cos I will be repeating it later [caller 1], that I’m reading from the Melbourne Age of November 15, 2004: ‘In an extraordinary admission, Indonesia says it bugged Australia’s embassy during the East Timor crisis and has tried to recruit Australians as spies’. And the retiring Indonesian Intelligence Chief said: ‘Well, you can say it’s a public secret, you know, a “secret”, but the whole public knows, this is quite common intelligence activity’. What was done is common intelligence activity.

This has been leaked in order to embarrass Abbott, when it in fact happened on Rudd’s watch. They were in possession of this material, if they were going to leak it, and it shouldn’t have been leaked, but if they were going to leak it, they were in possession of this in June. They’ve held over when Abbott and Morrison start to succeed on the whole boat issue, and this is now designed to deny Australia the advantage of Indonesian cooperation.

…

Caller 3 – Alan, do you think there was any tie-up with Mr Rudd resigning last week with this?

Alan Jones – How do you know? How would I know?

Caller 3 – It’s just interesting he’s out of Parliament now.

Alan Jones – Looks very smelly.

Caller 3 – Yeah.

…

It’s clear that those Snowden leaks were in possession of The Guardian newspaper for months. And the editor of The Guardian newspaper is mates with the Managing Director of the ABC Mark Scott, who should be sacked. Yesterday. Alexander Downer said it was passing strange that the story was not run prior to the election campaign. But of course, had it been run then, it would have embarrassed Kevin Rudd rather than Tony Abbott.

The ABC and The Guardian have basically acted like pirates and compromised a massive chunk of our intelligence gathering against one of our critical priority targets. At the minimum, Scott, the head of the ABC, should be sacked. The Managing Director, he calls himself, of the ABC. And there should be a Federal Police criminal investigation into how the ABC and The


5

Guardian newspaper came into possession of these stolen materials and then decided to publish top secret documents. Those involved should be in prison.

…And this proves they will do anything – even publish stolen documents from a criminal CIA computer specialist, who’s now a fugitive, and then white-ant Abbott and his government on the asylum-seeker issue and compromise our whole intelligence-gathering structure.

The Labor Party’s behaviour on this, the authors of the problem, their behaviour is beyond contemptible, but that’s no surprise. But for the national broadcaster to justify the publication of these stolen documents borders on the treasonous. As I said yesterday, treason is the violation, by a subject, of allegiance to the nation. There are any number of defence and intelligence personnel who are fuming at the ABC’s involvement in this treason, and are arguing that Scott, the boss of the ABC, should be sacked, and sacked immediately. No-one appointed Mark Scott or the ABC to be in charge of disclosing intelligence information.

While Mr Jones made factual assertions regarding the timing of the release of the information, he also provided his personal viewpoints concerning the political motives behind the timing, and the appropriateness of its publication in Australia by the ABC.

The ACMA considers that the ordinary, reasonable listener would have understood the factual assertions to be that:

the ABC had published information which had been sourced by Edward Snowden

this included information about Australian surveillance on Indonesia carried out during the period of the Rudd Government

the information had been in the possession of The Guardian newspaper for months.

it was published by the ABC after the election.

These points are not in dispute.

The statements that Mr Scott should ‘in my opinion’ be sacked, the recount of Mr Downer’s viewpoint as to the timing of the publication by the ABC, Mr Jones’ statements that there should be an enquiry and a criminal investigation and those involved should be imprisoned, and that the material was ‘leaked’ in order to embarrass the Abbott Government were expressions of opinion. They were emotive, subjective and judgmental or speculative. Given the language, tenor and tone, and contextual indications from the rest of the segment, the ACMA considers that the ordinary reasonable viewer would not have understood these statements as the presentation of factual material.

In the exchange with caller 1, Mr Jones said ‘they were in possession of this material…in June’. The ABC was not referred to at this point. It might be inferred that ‘they’ refers to the ABC. However, in the context of the segment as a whole, the ACMA is satisfied that the ordinary, reasonable listener would be more likely to have understood that this was a reference to The Guardian as Mr Jones had earlier claimed that it had been in possession of the information ‘for months’.

The ACMA is not satisfied that Mr Jones’ comment, ‘the editor of The Guardian is mates with the Managing Director of the ABC Scott, who should be sacked’ was a factual assertion that the ABC had access to information prior to November 2013 and withheld it until after the election.

Accordingly, the licensee did not breach clause 2.2(a) of the Code.


6

Issue 2: Distinguishing factual material from commentary and analysis

Relevant Code clause2.3 (a) In the preparation and presentation of current affairs programs a licensee must ensure that

the reporting of factual material is clearly distinguishable from commentary and analysis.

Complainant’s submissionsThe complainant submitted that ‘Mr Alan Jones in his presentation on the 21st November did not clearly distinguish whether he was presenting an opinion or factual information’.

Licensee’s submissionsThe licensee has submitted that it is ‘of the view that the complaint does not disclose any breach of [clause] 2.3(a)... of the Codes’.

FindingThe licensee did not breach clause 2.3(a) of the Code.

ReasonsThe ACMA has previously noted that in talk-back radio much of what is said will be in the nature of opinion and commentary8. Code 2.3(a) requires that where factual material is also reported, that factual material must be clearly distinguishable from the commentary.

As discussed above, the segments complained of included both factual material and statements of opinion. In the ACMA’s view these different types of material would have been apparent to, and clearly distinguishable by, the ordinary reasonable listener.

In this regard it is noted that, at some points, the context, language, tone and tenor indicate expressions of opinion by Mr Jones on The Guardian and the ABC having published the information in question, as well as on the nature of Australia’s foreign policy and its relationship with Indonesia more broadly. Examples of this include the following:

‘And the ABC Managing Director Scott, who in my opinion should’ve been sacked yesterday, and I’ll keep arguing that he should be sacked, told a Parliamentary Communications Legislation Committee earlier this week that it was in the public interest’.

‘I don’t want to say Yudhoyono’s dishonest, I don’t think he is, but they spy too’.

‘This bloke [Mr Scott] is a grub, and should go’.

‘But, of course, that stupid opposition in Canberra understand none of this’.

‘The ABC and The Guardian have basically acted like pirates and compromised a massive chunk of our intelligence gathering against one of our critical priority targets. At the minimum, Scott, the head of the ABC, should be sacked’.

At other points in the broadcast, as discussed above, context, language, tone and tenor indicate factual material.

8 See Investigation 2962


7

Accordingly, the ACMA considers that the factual material presented by Mr Jones in the broadcast was sufficiently clearly distinguishable from his commentary and analysis and that the licensee did not breach clause 2.3(a) of the Code.


8

Attachment A

Transcript of the segment – The Alan Jones Breakfast Show on 21 November 20135:42amAlan Jones – Let me tell you what you’ll hear today, and then I’ll tell you what you most probably won’t hear. This is Abbott at his very, very best. And... he’s got class, this fella, and I’ve told you that all along – we’re lucky to have this bloke in the saddle.

He said yesterday he’s absolutely committed – these are very serious times, I can tell you – and they are serious times for one simple reason: and that is that the ABC, the ABC has chosen to release and give oxygen to the stolen documents secured by a former CIA computer specialist Edward Snowden – stole the documents from the US National Security Agency, has leaked them to selected left-wing journalists, and now – and that includes stories of spying on 10 high-ranking Indonesian officials when Kevin Rudd was Prime Minister. And the ABC Managing Director Scott, who in my opinion should’ve been sacked yesterday, and I’ll keep arguing that he should be sacked, told a Parliamentary Communications Legislation Committee earlier this week that it was in the public interest. And this is the public interest now.

Indonesia, with an election next year, obviously playing the nationalist card, and they’re very, very stirred up. So – and of course, the left, who can’t cop Abbott, and he was being successful – is being successful on this asylum-seeker issue, this is designed to torpedo that. This is the last card they’ve got in the pack.

Tony Abbott said, in a special statement to the Parliament last night, that he was committed to building the closest possible relationship with Indonesia – he, of course, has said he won’t be spying.

And one of the reasons we gather information, and I mentioned this to you yesterday, one of the reasons – and this has to be understood – one of the reasons we gather information about other countries is to try and determine what their thinking is – it doesn’t mean we regard them as enemies – what their thinking is on issues that are important.

For example, in relation to Indonesia, Yudhoyono might be a friend of Australia’s, which he is - and a very reasonable and responsible man. I wish I could say the same thing about the Foreign Minister, that Natalegawa, who’s just an ego-tripping fool.

But you’ll recall – fair and reasonable Australians will recall – the 2002 Bali bombing, the 2003 bombing of the Marriot Hotel in Jakarta, the 2004 bombing of the Australian embassy in Jakarta, the 2005 second Bali bombing, two more Jakarta hotel attacks in 2009, they’re the reasons why we find out what’s going on in other countries.

What were we finding out then? Well, we were finding out then that Jamaah Islamiah was being regarded by Indonesian people as a spiritual group; as a charity. And Abu Bakar Baasyir as a holy man.

Now, spying, or intelligence gathering, helps a country understand the attitudes, on the basis of that, you then start your powers of persuasion, you talk to the leaders, and as you saw


9

what happened eventually, Indonesia came to understand that he wasn’t a spiritual leader at all, Abu Bakar Baasyir, but a terrorist, and that Jamaah Islamiah were, in fact, the group behind the bombings. Far from being a charity. Now, Australia’s national interest was well-served by intelligence. No doubt it included eavesdropping, which helped our security agencies understand the thinking of Indonesia’s civic and political leaders.

Now, that’s what this is about. President Yudhoyono has now ordered his country’s troops to stop joint exercises - which he has to do, he’s playing to the national gallery - to stop joint exercises with Australia in Darwin, he’s ordered his navy to stop joint patrols to combat people-smuggling, he said how can we do all of this if we’re not sure if there is no tapping of our military, which is working for the interests of the two countries.

I don’t want to say Yudhoyono’s dishonest, I don’t think he is, but [chuckles] they spy too. And I’ll come to that in a moment.

He said: ‘Facing the common problem of people smuggling, Indonesia and Australia have coordinated operations, coordinated patrolling of the sea area, I’ve asked for this to be suspended’.

Tony Abbott says: ‘There are some very serious issues that need to be worked out’. He said: ‘Again, I want to express to this chamber my deep and sincere regret about the embarrassment to the President and to Indonesia, that’s been caused by recent media reporting’. Mr Abbott told Parliament the President had indicated he’d be writing to him shortly, and that Mr Abbott said he’d be responding swiftly, fully and courteously. Mr Abbott concluded his statement to the Parliament by saying: ‘As always, I’m absolutely committed to building the closest possible relationship with Indonesia, because that is overwhelmingly in the interests of both our countries’.

Survivors of the 2002 Bali bombings, in which 202 people were killed, 88 of them Australians, have warned Indonesia that lives could be at risk if it maintains its stance over the phone-tapping. [Name], who underwent 10 operations after being injured at the Sari Club, said the cooperation between these two countries on counter-terrorism isn’t a game, and it shouldn’t be used as leverage in a diplomatic dispute.

At the same time, before I come to some observations I want to make, can you believe this: the ABC Managing Director Mark Scott has ordered an investigation into the leaking of the pay details of some of his staff. Mr Scott said the information, published in The Australian after a freedom of information application, was wrong and out of date. And he said it was unfair to the ABC, and it gave an advantage to other media companies. The leaking of information about salaries paid by the taxpayer is unfair, and gives an unfair advantage to other media companies, but the leaking of stolen documents about Australia’s intelligence is in the public interest. This bloke is a grub, and should go.

Let me say this to you: Indonesia are upset about intelligence gathering, Tony Abbott’s holding the line. The problem, as I said, is not Yudhoyono, but that erratic and egocentric Foreign Minister Natalegawa.

You will remember during the election campaign Labor politicians were claiming that Mr Abbott would trash the relationship with Indonesia. They obviously could make those claims in the knowledge that, as one writer said to me, they’d left a few death adders under the rocks that would eventually emerge. And here we are - we’ve seen the death adders. It’s clear that those Snowden leaks, stolen information, were in possession of The Guardian newspaper for


10

months. And the editor of The Guardian is mates with the Managing Director of the ABC Scott, who should be sacked. Alexander Downer said it was passing strange that the story was not run prior to the election campaign. But of course, had it been run, it would have embarrassed Kevin Rudd rather than Tony Abbott.

Well, what have Indonesia got to complain about? I’ll just make two points, and I’ll forget, for one moment, the billion dollars we gave Indonesia following the tsunami. But I’m now reading to you from the Melbourne Age newspaper of November 15, 2004. And I quote:

In an extraordinary admission, Indonesia said it bugged Australia’s embassy in Jakarta during the East Timor crisis, and has tried to recruit Australians as spies. Retiring Indonesian intelligence chief General X, [and I won’t – his name is unpronounceable] has claimed his agency tapped Australian civil and military communications and politicians’ phone calls. His agency’s attempts to recruit Australians to spy for Indonesia had been unsuccessful.

The story went on: ‘The Indonesian claims are unusual, in that while everyone knows Indonesia and Australia spy on each other, they rarely admit that they do it’. The General, who was the retiring Indonesian intelligence chief, said it was well-known that governments tapped each other’s communications, and Indonesia had much evidence that its embassies abroad were bugged. He said: ‘Here, we did the same thing. We want to know what is really discussed about us’.

We can say this is a public secret, you know, secret, but the whole public knows, this is quite common intelligence activity. The General said he presumed Australia did the same to Indonesia, he said: ‘She’s silly if she doesn’t do it, you know?’

Sensibly, at the time, Prime Minister Howard said he could neither confirm nor deny claims about national security. The then Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, said: ‘We don’t comment on intelligence matters’.

But, of course, that stupid opposition in Canberra understand none of this. Their responses have been appalling. Indeed, the Shadow Immigration Minister Richard Marles not only was demanding an apology from Tony Abbott for something the Rudd government was responsible for, but Richard Marles went on to demand the government confirm that Indonesia is still denying visas to Iranians who turn up in that country. In other words, Marles was virtually suggesting to Indonesia what Indonesia might do to punish Australia – to deny visas to Australians.

As Greg Sheridan said yesterday: ‘No MP deserves to be in the Parliament if he puts his own, or his party’s political interests ahead of the national interest’. Greg Sheridan said yesterday: ‘Bill Shorten is fast proving himself incapable of leading Labor’.

Let me say this: Tony Abbott is a gentleman, but it’s time to stop being a gentleman. Military and intelligence personnel risk their lives to ensure that the Australian Government, and its allies, have the best possible sources of intelligence on targets of interest. The ABC and The Guardian have basically acted like pirates and compromised a massive chunk of our intelligence gathering against one of our critical priority targets. At the minimum, Scott, the head of the ABC, should be sacked. The Managing Director, he calls himself, of the ABC. And there should be a Federal Police criminal investigation into how the ABC and The Guardian newspaper came into possession of these stolen materials and then decided to publish top secret documents. Those involved should be in prison. They have put Australian lives at risk. We cannot overstate how serious this is; we will lose intelligence sources, it’ll take months, or


11

years, to regain the lost capabilities. Mr Abbott will be forgiven for completely taking the gloves off. And Mark Scott, the Managing Director of the ABC, and Alan Rusbridger, the editor of The Guardian, should be the first people in the dock. They’re mates. Well, this’ll put them to the test. Stop pussy-footing around.

I said yesterday: this is the ultimate treachery by the left, who’ve attacked and undermined Abbott from day one. This must be their final card to try to prevent the Abbott Government from fulfilling its promise to stop the boats. And this proves they’ll do anything – even publish stolen documents from a criminal CIA computer specialist, now a fugitive, hiding in Russia, and then white-ant Abbott and his government on the asylum-seeker issues and compromise our whole intelligence-gathering structure.

The Labor Party’s behaviour on this, the authors of the problem, their behaviour is beyond contemptible. But for the national broadcaster to justify the publication of these stolen documents borders on the treasonous. As I said yesterday, treason is the violation, by a subject, of allegiance to the nation. There are any number of defence and intelligence personnel who are fuming at the ABC’s involvement in this treason, and are arguing that Scott, the boss of the ABC, should be sacked immediately. No-one appointed Scott, or the ABC, to be in charge of disclosing intelligence information. These people have now compromised the nation’s security. If anyone else did that, as I said yesterday, they would be in jail.

One final point: my attention has been drawn to the Medical Alumni Association’s newsletter of the University of Sydney, which says this:

Prime Minister Tony Abbott and the vice-President of Indonesia, his excellence Professor Doctor Boediono, launched the new Australia-Indonesia centre on November 13 – [what’s the date today? November 21]. The centre will foster and further grow Australia’s business, cultural education, research and community links with Indonesia. [It says] during his visit to Indonesia in October, Prime Minister Abbott committed 15 million dollars over four years to support the centre’.

The hypocrisy of the people like the Foreign Minister of Indonesia Natalegawa is breathtaking.

6:10amAlan Jones - I mean, the ABC... we’ve had a gutful, this is the ultimate...

Caller 1 – They’ve gotta be sold up, Alan!

Alan Jones – Yep, this is the final card, they hate Abbott, and this is the final card to torpedo Abbott’s success in turning back the boats, they’ve tried the tactic, ok, well, you’ve gone too far and you’ve put at risk national security – that, in my opinion, is treasonous behaviour—

Caller 1 – It is, Alan—

Alan Jones – Scott should be sacked as the Managing Director of the ABC, and we now need a national enquiry as to how they got hold of the documents, and why they did what they did with them.

Caller 1 – Alan, look, as I say, they’ve got no option but to do that. A crime has been committed, and as part of Tony Abbott’s oath of office, he’s gotta protect Australia and all of its secrets, whatever it does.


12

Alan Jones – Yeah, I mean, as I said to you, and let me repeat, because I will be repeating it later [caller 1], that I’m reading from the Melbourne Age of November 15, 2004: ‘In an extraordinary admission, Indonesia says it bugged Australia’s embassy in Jakarta during the East Timor crisis and has tried to recruit Australians as spies’. And the retiring Indonesian Intelligence Chief said: ‘Well, you can say it’s a public secret, you know, a “secret”, but the whole public knows, this is quite common intelligence activity’. What was done is common intelligence activity.

This has been leaked in order to embarrass Abbott, when it in fact happened on Rudd’s watch. They were in possession of this material, if they were going to leak it, and it shouldn’t have been leaked, but if they were going to leak it, they were in possession of this in June. They’ve held over when Abbott and Morrison start to succeed on the whole boat issue, and this is now designed to deny Australia the advantage of Indonesian cooperation.

Indonesia face national elections next year, they’ve got to play the national card, they spy on Australia but they’ve gotta say: ‘This is terrible stuff’, because there’s an election coming up. So they’re playing to the local electorate there and therefore say: ‘We’ll withdraw cooperation on asylum-seekers, we’ll withdraw military support, we’ll withdraw x, y and z’, playing to the national electorate, all designed, inspired, by leaks by the national broadcaster.

This is the same broadcaster that ran a dishonest program about live cattle exports to Indonesia enormously, and cost the Australian cattle industry impossibly large consequences. These people have gone on and on and on, and we’ve all been tolerant. They want to attack me every Monday night on that ridiculous program, they want to put all their left-wing mates onto Q&A.

Well, listen: enough is enough. We were prepared to cop all that and ignore it. This is not going to be ignored. It’s time for the gloves off. Malcolm Turnbull is the Minister in charge of the ABC. I know he’s the friend of Q&A. Well, come on, Malcolm. Up to the plate, my friend. This is unacceptable behaviour. Simple as that.

Caller 1 – Alan, don’t let up.

Alan Jones – No, we won’t be letting up [caller 1], it’s very good of you to ring from South Australia, and I thank you for that. [Caller 2], hello?

Caller 2 – Good morning Alan, how are you?

Alan Jones – Well, thank you.

Caller 2 – Just a quick thing about these – the information that was leaked, ahh, isn’t that possession of stolen goods?

Alan Jones – Well, the—

Caller 2 – If they’re in possession of stolen information—

Alan Jones – The material was stolen. That’s the point, that’s the first point. And they are trafficking in stolen material. This information was stolen by this Snowden, a former CIA computer specialist, and he gave these documents that he stole from US national security agencies, to selected left-wing journalists before becoming a fugitive to Moscow. So he stole them. And now, Scott and the ABC are trafficking in those stolen documents and damaging Australia’s national security.


13

Caller 2 – So what’s the difference between trafficking—

Alan Jones – Nothing, there’s no difference! And that’s why, as I said: gloves off!

[...]

Alan Jones – Scott yesterday, by the way, [caller 3], you will note, had tried— it was clear that he’d tried to keep information about what ABC staff were being paid, tried to keep it secret for years, that information. And yesterday, he said – this is the bloke who leaked, who leaked stolen information. Let me go – repeat again: the information that Scott leaked was information stolen by a former CIA computer specialist, Edward Snowden, from the US National security agency. He stole it and leaked it to selected journalists, and Scott published it. The Australian newspaper, under the guise of freedom of information, sought to know what the ABC was paying people like Tony Jones on Q&A and others, and it got the information. And it made the information public. What did Scott say about that yesterday, shrieking about it? He said: ‘Payroll information should be confidential, it shouldn’t be leaked’. He said: ‘This leak puts us at a significant disadvantage compared to our competitors’. So this bloke thinks it’s quite ok to leak stolen information about our national intelligence-gathering network, but it’s not ok to leak information about the salaries paid by the taxpayer to his staff. I tell you what. The bloke should be gone yesterday, [caller’s name].

Caller 3 – Alan, do you think there was any tie-up with Mr Rudd resigning last week with this?

Alan Jones – How do you know? How would I know?

Caller 3 – It’s just interesting he’s out of Parliament now.

Alan Jones – Looks very smelly.

Caller 3 – Yeah.

[...]

Alan Jones – These are things that you’re not meant to know about! They are happening behind the scenes to make Australia safer, just as President Yudhoyono would be working behind the scenes to try and make Indonesians safer. On the other hand, when this stuff is leaked, he’s most probably got a constituency over there saying ‘Well, what are you going to do about it Yudhoyono, show some guts! Those people – who’d have thought – those people are listening to your phones, listening to your wife’s phone – do something!’ So he, in the public place, has to minister to that constituency as well! That’s the kind of problem created by The Guardian and the ABC. And that’s why, I think, Tony Abbott takes the gloves off, he calls an enquiry, sacks this bloke first, Malcolm Turnbull should do that – sack him. And then call an enquiry into how this has happened and whether any crime has been committed by leaking documents, which, in the first place, were stolen. These are stolen documents. They are not the property of the ABC – they are trafficking in stolen goods. Snowden stole this as a former CIA computer specialist, stole this stuff from the US National Security Agency, and leaked it to selected journalists. These people are trafficking in stolen goods. Call an enquiry. In the meantime, Scott has forfeited his right to continue in his job.


14

7:40amAlan Jones – It’s 20 minutes to 8 on Thursday, November 21, and while this will pass, it is the biggest and most serious story in Australia by any reckoning. Indonesia, of course, the headlines say, are upset about intelligence gathering. Prime Minister Abbott, I believe outstanding, and holding the line. The problem in Indonesia is not Yudhoyono, but that erratic, egocentric Foreign Minister Natalegawa.

But remember, during the election campaign, Labor politicians were claiming that Mr Abbott would trash the relationship with Indonesia. They obviously could make those claims, we now know, in the knowledge that, as one writer said to me yesterday, they’d left a few death adders under the rocks that would eventually emerge. And here we are - we’ve seen the death adders. It’s clear that those Snowden leaks were in possession of The Guardian newspaper for months. And the editor of The Guardian newspaper is mates with the Managing Director of the ABC Mark Scott, who should be sacked. Yesterday. Alexander Downer said it was passing strange that the story was not run prior to the election campaign. But of course, had it been run then, it would have embarrassed Kevin Rudd rather than Tony Abbott.

What have Indonesia got to complain about? Well, I’ll just make a couple of points, and I’ll forget, for one moment, the billion dollars we gave Indonesia following the tsunami. But I’m now reading from the Melbourne Age newspaper of November 15, 2004, which says this:

In an extraordinary admission, Indonesia said it bugged Australia’s embassy in Jakarta during the East Timor crisis, and has tried to recruit Australians as spies. Retiring Indonesian intelligence chief General X, [with a long name] has claimed his agency tapped Australian civil and military communications and politicians’ phone calls. His agency’s attempt to recruit Australians to spy for Indonesia had been unsuccessful.

The story said: ‘The Indonesian claims are unusual, in that while everyone knows Indonesia and Australia spy on each other, they rarely admit that they do it’. And the General, who was the retiring Indonesian intelligence chief, said it was well-known that governments tapped each other’s communications, and Indonesia had much evidence its embassies abroad were bugged. The former head of Indonesian intelligence said: ‘Here, we did the same thing. We want to know what is really discussed about us’.

We can say this is a public secret, you know, ‘secret’, but the whole public knows, this is quite common intelligence activity. The General said he presumed Australia did the same thing to Indonesia, quote: ‘She’s silly if she doesn’t do it, you know?’

Sensibly, at the time, Prime Minister Howard said he could neither confirm nor deny claims about national security. The then Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, said: ‘We don’t comment on intelligence matters’.

But, of course, that stupid opposition in Canberra understand none of this. Their response has been appalling. Indeed, the Shadow Immigration Minister Richard Marles not only was demanding an apology from Tony Abbott for something the Rudd government was responsible for, but Richard Marles went on to demand that the Government confirm, this is a question in the Parliament, would Mr Abbott confirm that Indonesia is still denying visas to Iranians who turn up in that country. In other words, Marles virtually suggesting to Indonesia what it might do in retaliation against Australia – don’t give Australians visas.


15

As Greg Sheridan said yesterday: ‘No MP deserves to be in the Parliament if he puts his own, or his party’s political interests ahead of the national interest’. Greg Sheridan said yesterday: ‘Bill Shorten is fast proving himself incapable of leading Labor’.

Let me say this: Tony Abbott is a gentleman, but it’s time to stop being a gentleman. Military and intelligence personnel have risked their lives, and continue to risk their lives, to ensure that the Australian Government, and its allies, have the best possible sources of intelligence on targets of interest. The ABC and The Guardian have basically acted like pirates, printing stolen information, and compromised a massive chunk of our intelligence gathering against one of our critical priority targets. At the minimum, Mark Scott, the head of the ABC, should be sacked. He calls himself the Managing Director. And there should be a Federal Police criminal investigation into how the ABC and The Guardian came into the possession of stolen materials and then decided to publish top secret documents, which had been stolen. Those involved should be in prison. They have put Australian lives at risk. It is not possible to overstate how serious this matter is; we will lose intelligence sources, it’ll take months, or years, to regain this lost capability. Mr Abbott will be forgiven for completely taking the gloves off. And Mark Scott, the Managing Director of the ABC, and his mate Alan Rusbridger, the editor of The Guardian, should be the first people in the dock. Stop pussy-footing around.

I said yesterday: this is the ultimate treachery by the left, who’ve attacked and undermined Abbott from day one. Not day one in government; day one since he became Opposition Leader. This must be their final card to try to prevent the Abbott Government from fulfilling its promise to stop the boats. And this proves they will do anything – even publish stolen documents from a criminal CIA computer specialist, who’s now a fugitive, and then white-ant Abbott and his government on the asylum-seeker issue and compromise our whole intelligence-gathering structure.

The Labor Party’s behaviour on this, the authors of the problem, their behaviour is beyond contemptible, but that’s no surprise. But for the national broadcaster to justify the publication of these stolen documents borders on the treasonous. As I said yesterday, treason is the violation, by a subject, of allegiance to the nation. There are any number of defence and intelligence personnel who are fuming at the ABC’s involvement in this treason, and are arguing that Scott, the boss of the ABC, should be sacked, and sacked immediately. No-one appointed Mark Scott or the ABC to be in charge of disclosing intelligence information. These people have now compromised the nation’s security. If anyone else did that, as I said yesterday, they’d be in jail.

One final point: my attention has been drawn to the Medical Alumni Association’s newsletter of the University of Sydney, which says this:

Prime Minister Tony Abbott and the vice-President of Indonesia, his Excellency Professor Doctor Boediono, launched the new Australia-Indonesia centre on November 13. The centre will foster and further grow Australia’s business, cultural education, research and community links with Indonesia. During his visit to Indonesia in October, Prime Minister Tony Abbott committed 15 million dollars over four years to support the centre.

On top of the 500 million dollars that Prime Minister Gillard gave in 2010 to support Muslim schools in Indonesia. The hypocrisy of the utterings of people like the Foreign Minister of Indonesia Natalegawa, the hypocrisy is breathtaking.


16

Attachment BSome considerations to which the ACMA has regard in assessing whether or not particular content is factual material for the purposes of the code In practice, distinguishing between factual material and other material, such as opinion,

can be a matter of fine judgement.

The ACMA will have regard to all contextual indications (including subject, language, tenor and tone and inferences that may be drawn) in making its assessment.

The ACMA will first look to the natural and ordinary meaning of the language used.

Factual material will usually be specific, unequivocal and capable of independent verification.

The use of language such as ‘it seems to me’ or ‘we consider/think/believe’ will tend to indicate that the content is contestable and presented as an expression of opinion or personal judgement. However, a common sense judgement is required and the form of words introducing the relevant content is not conclusive.

Statements in the nature of predictions as to future events will rarely be characterised as factual material.

Statements containing hyperbole will rarely be characterised as factual material.

The identity of the person making a statement (whether as interviewer or interviewee) will often be relevant but not determinative of whether a statement is factual material.


17

Attachment CLicensee submissions regarding factual accuracyThe licensee submitted the following in relation to clause 2.2(a) of the Code:

Clause 2.2(a) of the Codes

1. The complainant has stated that “Alan Jones made the claim that the ABC and Mark Scott…had the information pertaining to the spying allegations before the 2013 election but witheld this information until after the 2013 federal election to favour the Labor Party.”

2. This statement is incorrect. In the broadcast, Mr Jones AO states:

“It was clear that those Snowden reports were in the possession of the Guardian for months. The editor of the Guardian is mates with the Managing Director of the ABC Scott who should be sacked. Alexander Downer said that it was passing strange that the story was not run prior to the campaign, but if it was it would have embarrassed Rudd and not Abbott.” [emphasis added]

3. Firstly, the broadcast clearly suggests that the Guardian had the information for months, but it makes no reference to the ABC having had the information for months.

4. Second, while Mr Jones states that the editor of the Guardian and Mr Scott are “mates”, this statement is not sufficient to suggest that the ABC or Mr Scott also had that information for months.

5. Third, while Mr Jones suggests in that excerpt that Mr Scott should be sacked, this statement relates to the reasons Mr Jones set out earlier in the piece, namely his opinion that the ABC should not be involved in the leaking of stolen Australian documents about Australia’s intelligence. As Mr Jones sets out very clearly later in the broadcast:

“At the minimum, Scott, the head of the ABC should be sacked and there should be a Federal Police criminal investigation as to how the ABC and the Guardian newspaper came to be in possession of these stolen document and then decided to publish top secret documents. Those involved should be in prison… For the national broadcaster to broadcast these documents borders on treasonous.”

6. The complainant further states that “the strident manner and the number of times Mr Alan Jones repeated the statement that the ABC had withheld the information on the spying allegations would lead a reasonable listener to conclude that Mr Alan Jones was presenting factual information not just an opinion.”.

7. This statement is also incorrect. Mr Jones did not once in the broadcast mention that the ABC had withheld information on the spying allegations. Mr Jones on one occasion repeated a suggestion by Alexander Downer that had the story run before the election, it would have embarrassed Rudd and not Abbott. However this statement does not in any way suggest that the ABC withheld information. Mr Jones clearly states “it was clear those Snowden reports were in the possession of the Guardian for months” [emphasis added]. The withholding of information is clearly attributed to the Guardian and not to the ABC or Mr Scott.

8. Mr Jones’ broadcast is entirely consistent with the statement of Mr Scott to the Parliamentary Communications Legislation Committee, referred to in the complaint. 2GB submits that it was not inaccurate in any way.


18

Documents

Invest… · Web viewThe complainant submitted that the broadcast had contained inaccurate material, that factual material was indistinguishable from commentary or analysis and that