Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On Sunday, 22 April I joined members and supporters of Marfan Association Victoria to kick off their fifth annual Walk for Marfan around Albert Park Lake in Melbourne. Marfan Syndrome is a genetic disorder of connective tissue that affects one in about every 3,000 people. Lives can be saved through early detection, medical treatment and managing lifestyle to reduce stress on the body. The symptoms and severity of the conditions are highly variable and visible characteristics can differ significantly from one individual to the next. A lot more community awareness and professional medical education is needed so that earlier diagnosis and intervention can occur when required.

This year's Walk for Marfan raised much-needed funds which will go towards making an educational DVD for medical practitioners, which aims to address this gap in knowledge. As members may recall from my first speech in this place, I spoke of my family's loss of my younger brother Jason, so I know firsthand how Marfan affects families. So I am very proud to lend my support to the tireless effort of the association's volunteers. I congratulate the Marfan Association and in particular secretary Kate Anderson-Nix for organising the Walk for Marfan and thank them for asking me to be part of the day.

On a sadder note, the ABC recently ran a program called Two on the Great Divide, with Tim Flannery and John Doyle, two people who I normally have a bit of respect for. However, their recent portrayal of the town of Seymour in the McEwen electorate has justifiably drawn anger and outrage from residents of the town, many of whom have spoken to or written to me recently. On the television series, they briefly visited the town. No one is exactly sure when, based on the footage being out of date. It showed the Aldi building site—Aldi has been going for nearly two years now—as part of their journey along the Great Dividing Range. What has upset local residents—and I share their anger—is the portrayal of Seymour as a bleak and socially disadvantaged town—a town lacking in opportunity for youth and a place where people only live when they have no other choice. This representation is overwhelmingly wrong and ignorant. The 200 emails and letters of complaint to the ABC, and dozens of letters to the local newspapers objecting to such a selective editing of imaging and interviews, are solid evidence that the Seymour community believes—rightly so—that the ABC got it wrong.

I have the privilege of representing Seymour in this place. I have known the town all my life and I know that there are great people who live there. Sadly, the producers of the program choose not to meet people proud and representative of the town. Most likely, the comments from those people would not have provided the fodder to illustrate the social divide that was needed for the program. Instead, the producers and presenters found a regionally based drug and alcohol worker who does not live in the town, the shire or the electorate and labelled him the 'local social worker'. Viewers were not told about the tremendous community spirit present in so many of our Australian country towns. Viewers were not shown any of the new shops, homes and infrastructure like Seymour College—a new school which incorporates primary, secondary and special schools. Seymour is a town, I might add, that is defying the trend by increasing its population by choice—that is, people want to come and live in Seymour. Instead, we got selective images of back fences in the rain and even the home of a family who are determined to become ecologically sustainable and self-sufficient by recycling as much as they can. To the producers, this was an opportunity to ignorantly show their home and yard as being untidy.

So frankly, the producers and presenters of the program and the ABC got it wrong. Theirs is one view—an elite inner city view of a regional town. Anyone who has paid more than a fleeting visit to the town knows all too well that that view is not true. Simon Melkman from ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs said in a response that the two presenters 'openly meet and engage with people from all walks of life to discuss their perspectives on life in the places they live'. In addition, the director of the series provided the following information:

We certainly didn't set out to willingly denigrate Seymour, or to do it harm. In assessing content against the impartiality standards, it is necessary to consider, in context, all relevant factors, including the type, nature and subject matter of the content and the audience's likely expectations of it.

The information within the segment was presented with due impartiality, and the favouring of the perspectives of Mr Doyle and Professor Flannery—consistent with the format of the series—was not undue. We are therefore satisfied that the relevant editorial standards were met.

Well, I would just like to mention to Mr Melkman that perhaps if he watched the TV show he would know that the people interviewed were not locals.

The show left Seymour and travelled off to a place called 'Kings Lake'. For the record and for the ABC's benefit, it is Kinglake—one word, not two. The ABC should know this because the ABC spent three months up there after the bushfires, milking that for all it was worth. This is what the ABC calls its 'editorial standards'. I know that the outrage continues with a letter to the ABC from the mayor, Sue Marstaeller, who also pointed out that it was 'an appalling, blatant and undignified kick to the guts to Seymour and Seymour residents'.