Investigation Report No. 3241File No. ACMA2014/639

Broadcaster 4RN

Station 612 ABC Brisbane

Type of Service National Broadcaster

Name of Program Mornings with Steve Austin

Date of Broadcast 10 July 2014

Relevant Code Standards 4.1 and 4.2 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011

Date finalised 28 October 2014

Decision No breach of standard 4.1 [impartiality]No breach of standard 4.2 [diversity of perspectives]

ACMA Investigation Report 3421—Mornings with Steve Austin—612 ABC Brisbane – 10 July 2014

Background

In July 2014, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) commenced an investigation into a segment of the program Mornings with Steve Austin broadcast on 10 July 2014 by 612 ABC Brisbane for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC).

The program is broadcast between 8:30am and 11:00am on Mondays to Fridays and contains a mixture of news, current affairs and interviews. It is described on its website as:

Steve Austin puts the spotlight on the issues affecting Brisbane whether it be politics or big business or potholes in your street.1

On 10 July 2014, a segment appeared on the program during which the presenter interviewed Mr Tony Brown, the operator of a tourism business in Queensland’s Whitsundays. They discussed Mr Brown's attempts to lobby against the Abbott Government’s proposal to permit dredging operations in the Great Barrier Reef – in particular, Mr Brown’s successful efforts to dissuade large banks from financing the proposal.

The segment ran for nine minutes. A transcript is at Attachment A.

The complainant submitted the following:

I am sick of the biased reporting on the sea dumping at Abbot Point. If you… look at the facts you will see that the sea dumping from dredging is a tiny percentage of what is dumped every year through flooding. Secondly, the dumping is nowhere near the reef and has NO IMPACT on the reef - it is in the GBR area, nowhere near the reef. Once again, we see the left wing, green bias of the ABC.

The ABC, in response, stated, ‘we believe this was a legitimate and impartial update on a story of ongoing concern to many of our listeners.’ The ABC’s full response and additional submissions are at Attachment B.

This investigation has considered the ABC’s compliance with standards 4.1 and 4.2 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (the Code):

4. Impartiality and diversity of perspectives

4.1 Gather and present news and information with due impartiality. 4.2 Present a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented.

Assessment In assessing content for compliance with the Code, the ACMA considers the meaning

conveyed by the relevant material that was broadcast. This is assessed according to the understanding of an ‘ordinary reasonable’ listener.

Australian courts have considered an ‘ordinary, reasonable’ listener 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,

1 http://www.abc.net.au/brisbane/programs/612_morning/

ACMA Investigation Report 3241—Mornings with Steve Austin—612 ABC Brisbane – 10 July 2014

2

but can and does read between the lines in the light of that person’s general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs.2

In considering compliance with the Code, the ACMA considers the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone and 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 that was broadcast, it then assesses compliance with the Code.

Issue: Impartiality and diversity of perspectivesFindingThe ABC did not breach standards 4.1 or 4.2 of the Code.

Reasons Relevant principles set out in the Code in relation to impartiality and diversity of

perspectives include:

Judgements about whether impartiality was achieved in any given circumstances can vary among individuals according to their personal and subjective view of any given matter of contention. Acknowledging this fact of life does not change the ABC’s obligation to apply its impartiality standard as objectively as possible. In doing so, the ABC is guided by these hallmarks of impartiality:

a balance that follows the weight of evidence; fair treatment; open-mindedness; and opportunities over time for principal relevant perspectives on matters of

contention to be expressed.

[...]

Impartiality does not require that every perspective receives equal time, nor that every facet of every argument is presented.

Assessing the impartiality due in given circumstances requires consideration in context of all relevant factors including:

the type, subject and nature of the content; the circumstances in which the content is made and presented; the likely audience expectations of the content; the degree to which the matter to which the content relates is contentious; the range of principal relevant perspectives on the matter of contention; and the timeframe within which it would be appropriate for the ABC to provide

opportunities for the principal relevant perspectives to be expressed, having regard to the public importance of the matter of contention and the extent to which it is the subject of current debate.

The ACMA considers that the presenter did not convey a prejudgement about the Abbot Government’s Great Barrier Reef dredging scheme, and did not display any enmities in this regard. Rather, he posed a series of straightforward and objective questions to Mr Brown, designed to invite Mr Brown to outline the nature of his campaign. The questions were posed to Mr Brown in a measured and even-handed manner, and he was given a fair opportunity to give uninterrupted responses to the questions being asked of him.

2 Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (1998) NSWLR 158 at 164-167.

ACMA Investigation Report 3241—Mornings with Steve Austin—612 ABC Brisbane – 10 July 2014

3

The reporter did not pass any judgement on whether or not ‘the sea dumping from dredging is a tiny percentage of what is dumped every year through flooding’ or whether or not the dredging scheme has any impact on the Great Barrier Reef, as asserted by the complainant. He remained neutral and offered no opinion on the matter.

The ACMA further notes that Mr Brown made it clear that he was critical neither of the Abbott Government’s dredging scheme as a whole nor of the mining industry; rather, he was opposed only to certain elements of the scheme, in particular, the disposal method being adopted by the mining companies in the area. Examples of this include the following:

‘We recognise mining to be an incredibly important economic [sic] and also provides jobs to the region, and we want this to be – to continue. We want – the only thing is we just don’t want the disposal of the sea spoil into the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park to impact tourism, which is also incredibly important economics to Australia [sic] and also a very large employer. So, we’re just trying to find a way to have a win-win for both mining and for tourism’.

Presenter – ‘Are you anti-mining?’

Tony Brown – ‘No, not at all’.

‘The sea-dumping disposal method is a localised impact, but we also happen to be very close to that localised impact, and so we have great concerns’.

We’re greatly concerned specifically about the disposal method’.

Mr Brown also made reference to the fact that he had been in conversation with the Hon Mr Greg Hunt MP, the Abbott Government’s Environment Minister, who had expressed concerns in relation to the potential environmental impacts of his government’s proposed scheme:

We’ve spoken to Greg Hunt, as I said, in a few meetings, and he’s also concerned about the impacts, obviously, and that’s his job! …and I have spoken to him where he’s said that he is concerned by the disposal of sea dumping, and I think that’s shown in, he, he changed the disposal method in Gladstone in, late last year for a, for a project, and he, and I’m sure he’s fully aware of disposal methods and what’s the best practice.

The ACMA considers that these elements of the segment made it apparent that neither the presenter nor Mr Brown were inherently opposed to the Abbott Government and that there was no evident ‘left-wing, green bias’ as submitted by the complainant.

In examining the ABC’s compliance with standard 4.2 of the Code, the ACMA notes the ABC’s submission that the issue of dumping dredge spoil inside the Great Barrier Reef ‘has been the subject of a great many stories on ABC Radio, ABC Television and abc.net.au’. The ABC then provided links to 13 news and current affairs broadcasts that examined the issue, within the date range of 10 December 2013 and 19 August 2014. These included various different perspectives on the topic including:

o Queensland Minister for the Environment and Heritage Protection Mr Andrew Powell, who argued forcefully in favour of the dredging proposal, as well as presenting the case against the UNESCO World Heritage Committee placing the Great Barrier Reef on the World Heritage ‘In Danger’ list. This interview appeared on the program on 12 June 2014;

o Mr Michael Roche of the Queensland Resources Council, who spoke in favour of the proposal on The World Today program on 19 August 2014;

ACMA Investigation Report 3241—Mornings with Steve Austin—612 ABC Brisbane – 10 July 2014

4

o Dr Russell Reichelt, the Chairperson of the Great Barrier Marine Park Authority, was interviewed on the program and outlined the reasons behind his organisation’s decision to rubber stamp the dredging proposal. Mr Reichelt also appeared on the PM program on 31 January 2014;

o The views of Mr Hunt and Mr Roche (arguing in favour of the proposal)

receiving significant airtime on the 7:30 program on 11 December 2013; ando Mr Hunt being interviewed on the program on 21 August 2014 in relation to

the issue, and voicing his views at length. Having regard to the hallmarks of impartiality cited above in the ABC’s guiding

principles, the ACMA notes the following:o The segment reported on the proposed plans of the Abbott Government to

permit dredging operations in the Great Barrier Reef. There is no dispute that the proposal was controversial, causing concern on the part of environmental groups, and that it was the subject of community debate.

o There is no complaint that the views of Mr Brown were inaccurately presented or that his views were misrepresented.

o Mr Brown referred to numerous responses to the proposal during the interview:

We’ve got the Barrier Marine Parks Authority concerned by this method, UNESCO World Heritage Committee scientists - 140 scientists wrote a paper asking for this not to be the method - then you look at commercial fishing, tourism, recreational fishing, and just socially, there’s a lot of people concerned by this method.

The ACMA is therefore satisfied that the presentation of Mr Brown’s views on the proposal demonstrated a balance that followed the weight of evidence on the issue.

o The ACMA considers that Mr Brown received fair treatment from the presenter. He was given ample opportunity to present his views in an uninterrupted manner. It also notes that people in support of the proposal were interviewed during the period that the issue was the subject of current debate.

o The ACMA is satisfied that the ABC displayed open-mindedness during the segment. While Mr Brown criticised several aspects of the Abbott Government’s proposal, it was not condemned outright. In addition, as noted above, Mr Brown stated at various points that he was not inherently anti-mining, and that it was only certain aspects of the proposal that he was objecting to. It was also made clear in the interview that the issue was controversial, indicating that there were opposing views..

o As outlined above, the ABC gave a number of opportunities over time for alternative viewpoints, on the issue to be presented, across various different programs. These views included principal perspectives in favour of the proposal.

The ACMA is satisfied that the segment was presented with due impartiality and in accordance with the Code’s principles outlined above.

The ACMA is satisfied that the ABC presented a diversity of perspectives over time and that no significant strand of thought or belief within the community was knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented.

Accordingly, the ABC did not breach standards 4.1 or 4.2 of the Code.

ACMA Investigation Report 3241—Mornings with Steve Austin—612 ABC Brisbane – 10 July 2014

5

Attachment A

Transcript of the segmentPresenter – Tony Brown is a small businessman. He works in an area that is about to be affected by one of the big coal-loading facilities in Australia, the Whitsundays. And he pays money to the Federal Government – a lot of money, as it turns out – for the right to use the barrier Reef Marine Park. However, things are about to change. While he can’t dump anything into the heritage-listed waters of the Barrier Reef, coal miners (or people that own the coal-loading facility in North Queensland) will be allowed to dump millions of tonnes of soil and sand. Now, this is not a new story. You’ve heard me do this story numerous times in the past, and you’ve heard me talk with the Barrier Marine Park Authority Head as to why they’ve allowed it. But Tony Brown, as a small businessman, has had enough. And he’s getting some wins. Tony Brown, good morning to you.

Tony Brown – Good morning, Steve.

Presenter – Tony Brown, you went to Deutsche Bank and a number of the biggest banks in the world and asked them – in fact, you convinced them, not to put up capital to fund the Abbott Point coal-loading terminal. Why?

Tony Brown – Umm - we are very concerned about the impact to the Whitsundays. The sea-dumping disposal method is umm - a localised impact, but we also happen to be very close to that localised impact, and so we have great concerns. So if you look at – we’ve got the Great Barrier Marine Parks Authority concerned by this method, UNESCO World Heritage Committee scientists - 140 scientists wrote a paper asking for this not to be the method - then you look at commercial fishing, tourism, recreational fishing, and just socially, there’s a lot of people concerned by this method, so we’re greatly concerned specifically about the disposal method.

Presenter – You went to Deutsche bank and others, and said ‘Don’t put up $1.8 billion for this project’ and they agreed; you won, initially.

Tony Brown – Well, they’re governed by the – what’s called the equator principles, which is a umm, risk management framework. And within that framework, they have to do their own internal studies, both on the environmental and social impacts. So because of the lack of consensus, I suppose, with UNESCO’s position and the World Heritage Committee, ultimately, and the Australian government’s position, specifically on the disposal method, umm – it makes it hard for them to move forward, and finance projects that have these impacts.

Presenter – You stopped a $1.8 billion capital investment into your own area – what have some of the locals said to you about this?

Tony Brown – Look we’re umm – we recognise mining to be an incredibly important economic [sic] and also provides jobs to the region, and we want this to be – to continue. We want – the only thing is we just don’t want the disposal of the sea spoil into the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park to impact tourism, which is also incredibly important economics to Australia and also a very large employer. So, we’re just trying to find a way to have a win-win for both mining and for tourism.

Presenter – What have some of the locals said to you after you had your win stopping the banks putting up the nearly $2 billion initially?

ACMA Investigation Report 3241—Mornings with Steve Austin—612 ABC Brisbane – 10 July 2014

6

Tony Brown – Umm – I think everyone understands the concern here. We all live here – we are impacted. There’s a lot of confusion out there in regard to the rhetoric that’s been out there, and the spin. The Whitsundays is, you know, got a lot of islands, [sic] and umm, we are impacted by sediment, it’s one of our biggest problems. So, umm, increasing the sediment load in our region obviously is something that we really are concerned about, and anyone who lives in the Whitsundays, look at it – I mean, if you look out the window I’m just looking out now, the view like this, it’s just stunning. And we just don’t want our region to be impacted. So I’ve had nothing but positive comments.

Presenter – Now, the financial press is paying a fair bit of attention to you in Australia at the moment, largely because you’re going to see the big four Australian banks next week. I assume this means NAB, ANZ, Commonwealth and Westpac – what are you going to tell them?

Tony Brown – Umm – I’m just going to show them the documentation that we’ve found along our journey in trying to understand whether there’s an impact to our region or not, umm, explain the concerns that we have, umm, in a very frank and honest manner. I think it’s really important that the banks meet an operator who lives here, breathes the Whitsundays, out on the Barrier Reef, and I think they’d get a better understanding of our concerns that way.

Presenter – Are you anti-mining?

Tony Brown – No, not at all.

Presenter – Your – this particular coal mining facility in particular is of concern to you, you pay fees – significant fees, as I understand it, as a tourism operator, to the Federal Government. How much, and what for?

Tony Brown – Well, we pay what’s called an environmental management charge, which is umm – we collect for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Parks Authority, umm, and that’s done on a per-passenger basis. That’s sort of $3.50 per person per day, umm, so, the Whitsundays themselves are providing close to $1 million per annum in umm, in those environmental management charges, and umm, that will be increasing next year, and so, it will almost double, so we’d be expecting close to $2 million.

Presenter – And are you allowed to dump anything in the waters of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park?

Tony Brown – No, we’re all under the London protocol, and, umm, operations in the [unintelligible], so, you know, of course not.

Presenter – So, ahh, this means, essentially part of the problem is that tourism operators are not allowed to dump anything in the waters but major mining operations are.

Tony Brown - Umm – well, I don’t think that’s really – the real point, I mean, the point is that we’re really concerned about the health of the Reef, and the resilience of the Great Barrier Reef, we want to have this here for the future, umm – it’s also about jobs and things, so we’re just concerned specifically about impacts from sediment and, so, obviously something where they’re disposing of spoil in the Great Barrier Reef Marine park close to us is a real concern. We believe that there are better methods, we know [unintelligible] thinks there are better methods, which is land disposal, or umm, extend trestles into deeper water.

Presenter – The – my guest, if you’ve just turned on the wireless, is a small businessman by the name of Tony Brown. He operates a tourism business in the Whitsundays and he’s convinced big international banks to hold off funding a major coal-point terminal at Abbott

ACMA Investigation Report 3241—Mornings with Steve Austin—612 ABC Brisbane – 10 July 2014

7

Point, and he’s going to go to the Australia banks next week and ask them to do the same. What day next week, Tony Brown?

Tony Brown – Umm, I go on Thursday – Thursday in Sydney and Friday down in Melbourne.

Presenter – And are you meeting all of them together at once or in different meetings?

Tony Brown – No, I meet the sustainability management group, and, umm, and, so they’ll be individually done, umm – unfortunately we can’t see Commonwealth, they’re a bit busy, but, ahh, the others umm, have been free to give some time, which has been great.

Presenter – Now, have you told the State government and the Federal government about your concerns, I mean, they must know who you are now that you’ve convinced major global banks to not give $2 billion. That would make any government stand up and take notice. What have you said to them?

Tony Brown – Yes, look, umm, we’ve been in conversation, look, I’m the President of the Whitsunday charter boat industry association, so, umm, we’re very much involved with umm, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, and umm, certainly in conversations I’ve met Greg Hunt several times and umm, written to him numerous times discussing our concerns, and we’ve been in dialogue for a long time over this concern.

Presenter – And what have they said? Have they acknowledged your concerns, have either State or Federal Environment Ministers said anything to you when you raised these concerns with them?

Tony Brown – Yes, look, I mean, we’ve spoken to Greg Hunt, as I said, in a few meetings, and he’s also concerned about the impacts, obviously, and that’s his job! Umm, and I have spoken to him where he’s said that he is concerned by the disposal of sea dumping, and I think that’s shown in, he, ahh, he changed the disposal method in Gladstone in umm, late last year for a ahh, for a project, and he umm, and I’m sure he’s fully aware of disposal methods and what’s the best practice.

Presenter – So you feel the Federal Environment Minister’s prepared to act, as he has done, what about the State Government?

Tony Brown – Umm, look, to be honest, I haven’t had much to do with the State Government other than our local, umm, representatives, so, umm, I’m not really sure where their stance is.

Presenter – All right. I appreciate your time, I would love to speak to you again after you meet the big four Australian banks. Tony Brown, thanks very much.

Tony Brown – Thanks, Steve.

ACMA Investigation Report 3241—Mornings with Steve Austin—612 ABC Brisbane – 10 July 2014

8

Attachment BABC’s submissions

The ABC responded to the complainant as follows:

The broadcast you refer to was one of a number of interviews carried out by 612 ABC Brisbane, following last year’s Government decision to approve the disposal of dredge material within the reef marine park area.

The Mornings program has focused its coverage on getting objective scientific opinion on the issue, rather than looking at the arguments from a political or conservationists perspective, in an attempt to cut through the ‘spin’ and present the facts for our listeners.

On this particular occasion the program decided to talk to Tony Brown, who runs a tourism business in the Whitsundays, after he successfully lobbied Deutsche Bank not to fund the Abbot Point scheme until the Government and UNESCO have agreed on a set of conditions relating to the reef. Mr Brown was also meeting with a number of Australian banks about the issue.

It is the ABC’s role to be questioning in all news and current affairs output and during the interview, Mr Brown was challenged by presenter Steve Austin about whether he was simply ‘anti-mining’ or legitimately concerned about the effects of the dredge spoil in the area. 

We should point out that the Environment Minister Greg Hunt was invited to appear on the same program, but declined our request.

The ABC takes no editorial stand in its programming. Editorial judgements are based on news values alone and not for example on the presenter or production team’s political or personal views.

We believe this was a legitimate and impartial update on a story of ongoing concern to many of our listeners.

The ABC subsequently submitted the following to the ACMA:

[In relation to standard 4.2 of the Code]: As the ACMA has previously acknowledged, this requirement does not prescribe that a diversity of perspectives must be broadcast on the same program (ACMA Investigation Report No 2906), nor that the diversity of perspectives be presented on different episodes of the same program (ACMA Investigation Report No 3107). Judging compliance with standard 4.2 requires consideration of the ABC’s output over all platforms.

Tony Brown was interviewed as a local small businessman operating in tourism and concerned about the impact on the Great Barrier Marine Park of dumping approvals granted to the Abbott Point coal loading terminal.  Mr Brown said that he recognised that mining was economically important to Australia and he wanted to see it continue.  He made the point that tourism in the Whitsundays area was also economically valuable and he did not want to see the industry compromised by sediment affecting the reef.  He was trying to find a win-win for mining and tourism and suggested that there were better methods for getting rid of the mining waste, such as land disposal or extending trestles into deeper water.  As the initial response to the complainant made clear, Environment Minister Greg Hunt was invited to appear on the same program but declined.  I am advised that Greg Hunt is to be interviewed on the Mornings program tomorrow. ABC Radio has also advised that the 612 ABC Brisbane Mornings program

ACMA Investigation Report 3241—Mornings with Steve Austin—612 ABC Brisbane – 10 July 2014

9

has in the past approached GVK for comment several times on stories but responses were not received within a workable timeframe. 

The issue at the heart of this item was the approved system for dumping dredge spoil inside the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.  This is an issue that has been the subject of a great many stories on ABC Radio, ABC Television and abc.net.au.  We are satisfied that this range of coverage has presented a diversity of perspectives, consistent with the requirements of 4.2.  Some of the relevant coverage is noted below.  We recommend that you visit our website should you wish to seek out any further coverage.  You will find it readily available.

- 10 December 2013, PM, ‘Hunt gives go ahead to Abbott Point coal terminal expansion’, http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2013/s3908996.htm

- 11 December 2013, AM, ‘Locals divided over Abbott Point expansion’: http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2013/s3909151.htm

- 11 December 2013, The World Today, ‘Conservation concerns over major Qld coal port expansion’: http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2013/s3909355.htm

- 11 December 2013, 7.30, ‘Greg Hunt: Dredge dump “no threat” to Reef’: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3909914.htm

- 17 January 2014, AM, ‘Tourism industry opposes Abbott Point coal decision’: http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2013/s3927202.htm

- 31 January 2014, PM, ‘Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority approves controversial dredge spoil permit’: http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2013/s3935983.htm

- 9 March 2014, Background Briefing, ‘The Abbott Point gamble’: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/2014-03-09/5300560#transcript

- 6 February 2014, 612 ABC Brisbane Mornings interviewed Dr Russell Reichelt, Chairperson of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority: http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2014/02/abbot-point-expansion.html

- 22 February 2014, 612 ABC Brisbane Evenings program interviewed Col McKenzie, member of the Transport and Logistics Workforce Advisory Group – Queensland and member of the Association of Marine Park Tourism Operators about the health of the reef: https://soundcloud.com/#612abcbrisbane/are-we-losing-the-great-barrier-reef

- 12 June 2014, 612 ABC Brisbane Mornings spoke to State Minister for Environment and Heritage Andrew Powell about the case against UNESCO’s efforts to list the reef as endangered, and also spoke to Save The Reef spokesman, Andrew Jeremijenko: https://soundcloud.com/#612abcbrisbane/steve-austin-should-the-great-barrier-reef-be-listed-as-endangered

- 30 June 2014, PM, ‘Concerns about dredge material in the Great Barrier Reef’: http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2014/s4036202.htm?site=tropic

- 18 August 2014, Four Corners, ‘Battle for the Reef’: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2014/08/18/4067593.htm

- 19 August 2014, The World Today, ‘Calls for Great Barrier Reef body to the overhauled’: http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2014/s4070135.htm 

ACMA Investigation Report 3241—Mornings with Steve Austin—612 ABC Brisbane – 10 July 2014

10