Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 12 August 2026:

The obligations of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) in relation to the impartiality and accuracy of its news and information content, including relevant obligations under the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 (ABC Act), ABC editorial policies and ABC Code of Practice, with particular reference to:

(a) recent or otherwise significant instances where the accuracy or impartiality of ABC news or information has been called into question, including the nature of any alleged breach of the ABC Act, ABC editorial policies or ABC Code of Practice and any resulting corrections, clarifications, retractions, complaints, legal proceedings or other actions;

(b) the adequacy and transparency of the ABC's complaints handling processes, including:

(i) the operation and resourcing of the ABC Ombudsman's Office,

(ii) the timeliness and independence of investigations, and

(iii) the accessibility of complaints pathways for the public;

(c) the appropriateness and potential risks of the ABC entering into partnerships, collaborations, arrangements or agreements with external organisations (domestic or international) which may create real or perceived conflicts affecting impartiality or accuracy;

(d) the qualifications, training, supervision and continuing professional development of ABC journalists, editors, producers and presenters, including whether internal processes adequately support adherence to the ABC's impartiality and accuracy obligations;

(e) the role, responsibilities and available powers of the Australian Government and the Minister for Communications in responding to or remedying failures by the ABC, including its Board, to meet obligations relating to impartiality and accuracy; and

(f) any other related matters.

Today I am calling on the Senate to support my motion for an inquiry into one of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's most fundamental statutory obligations: to disseminate news and information impartially and accurately. This obligation is embedded not just in the ABC Act but also in ABC policies and the ABC Code of Conduct. My motion also seeks to inquire into the ABC complaints process, the training and supervision of ABC journalists and other content producers, and any third-party arrangements which may undermine the ABC's impartiality and accuracy obligations.

From the outset, I make it clear I am a very strong supporter of public broadcasting and the ABC. As part of a 16-year career, principally as a television journalist and presenter, I worked at the ABC for nine years in current affairs and factual television programming, where I won a Walkley award for my work. ABC journalists, presenters, producers, editors and other content makers frequently produce work of the highest calibre on free-to-air and digital TV and radio and online, across news, current affairs, documentaries, opinion programs, drama, comedy and talk radio, including at times of emergency. Often they work under extreme pressure, meeting the most challenging of deadlines. I also know what it's like to feel the heat when politicians don't like the stories which are told.

This inquiry is not about questioning the ABC's editorial independence. This is sacrosanct. It is about examining the standards which must be applied when that editorial independence is exercised. Section 8 of the ABC Act requires the ABC board:

(b) to maintain the independence and integrity of the Corporation;

The section also requires the ABC board:

(c) to ensure that the gathering and presentation by the Corporation of news and information is accurate and impartial according to the recognized standards of objective journalism;

The ABC receives around $1.2 billion of taxpayer funding every year. Accordingly, Australians have every right to demand the highest standards of our national broadcaster.

Trust in our ABC means ensuring the ABC leaves no stone unturned to meet its impartiality and accuracy obligations. Trust in our ABC means ensuring that, when mistakes are made or when there are errors of judgement, they are corrected quickly and comprehensively. Regrettably, there have been too many times when the ABC has failed the impartiality test. This is compounded by the Albanese government's failure to hold our national broadcaster to account when it falls short of the highest standards of journalism. Just in recent weeks, we've seen the doctoring of a photograph featuring Senator Hume that was broadcast on the ABC's flagship current affairs program, Insiders. She was made to look as if she was mocking the coalition's leadership team. We also saw the hectoring of the Leader of the Opposition, Ms Ley, in an interview on the 7.30 program. Ms Ley was interrupted by the program's host on 35 occasions. Senator Nampijinpa Price was recently—and I have to say disgracefully—called a racist on Insiders.

Four Corners has not yet explained why it deleted key lines of President Trump's speech in a program on the Capitol riots—the same editing decision made by the BBC, which led to the demise of two executives, amongst other matters at the BBC. These lines, when the President called on people to 'walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congress men and women', did not fit with the program's narrative that President Trump had incited violence. While I do not contest the ABC's right to exercise its own editorial judgement and conclusions in relation to this very significant story, it must do so impartially and accurately. Deleting key facts which undermined Four Corners' narrative—I would say, to suit that narrative—just as the BBC did, was simply the wrong journalistic call.

No-one is suggesting, I might add, that the ABC program reflected precisely the same editing decisions as the BBC. The ABC's managing director, Mr Marks, has said that the criticism initially raised by Sky News's presenter Chris Kenny, and then by me, were 'false and opportunistic'. There was nothing false about these concerns. They were factually correct. There is nothing opportunistic about holding the ABC to account when these issues of journalistic integrity arise.

One of the worst incidents concerned the false allegations made by the ABC against former special forces commando Heston Russell, which included the insertion of fake gunshots in one report and the waste of millions of dollars in legal proceedings defending the indefensible. In the face of egregious allegations he had committed a war crime, Mr Russell was dragged through the mud and forced to fight for justice in the Federal Court, which found the ABC's conduct to be recklessly indifferent to the truth. Yet, still, I would argue, there has still been no cultural reckoning inside the broadcaster.

I've also raised concerns the ABC Act is no longer fit for purpose and needs to be rewritten. It was established in 1983 when journalists were still working on typewriters, before digital news, social media, rolling online commentary and the modern ecosystem of information. Yes, there have been amendments, but I say strongly that the ABC Act is not fit for purpose, and I do place on record that the former Labor minister for communications, Ms Rowland, now the Attorney-General, also agreed with my view that the ABC Act needed an overhaul. Yet this government, in three and a half years, has done nothing to that effect.

Impartial journalism means making decisions to cover stories impartially. The Federal Court case Tickle v Giggle, which found that Sall Grover did not have the right to exclude a biological man who identified as a trans woman from a women-only app Giggle for Girls, received considerable coverage by the ABC. However, the Federal Court appeal into the chilling impact of the Sex Discrimination Act, which, as it is currently interpreted, no longer gives women the right to female-only spaces, has received no attention from the ABC.

The Lesbian Action Group has also raised concerns about the ABC's refusal to cover issues which challenge gender identity activism. The ABC has declined to cover this group's battle to hold a women-only event, which will be heard in the Federal Court next year. In a complaint lodged by the group last week, it said:

The ABC was created to serve all Australians—not activist organisations, not lobbyists, and not ideological driven movements. Its independence is not optional; it is the foundation of public trust in our national broadcaster.

We urge the Board and executive leadership to take immediate action to restore confidence in the ABC's impartiality, transparency, and editorial integrity.

The Lesbian Action Group, amongst others, has also raised concerns about the ABC's partnership with ACON, which supports trans ideology. The group says the ABC's endorsement of ACON's Australian Workplace Equality Index, a 'paid, commercial system under which organisations are benchmarked, trained, ranked, and rewarded for alignment', is not consistent with the ABC's impartiality obligations. The group says:

This is not a benign HR initiative. It is a governance relationship with an activist body whose ideological positions directly intersect with sensitive areas of ABC editorial output.

No public broadcaster can credibly maintain impartiality while being assessed and rewarded by a political lobby group whose position it routinely amplifies.

This is just one arrangement which needs to be scrutinised by the Environment and Communications References Committee.

There have been numerous other controversial decisions which bring into question the ABC's impartiality. Its coverage of antisemitism and the plight of Jewish Australians has received a lot of focus as has the ABC's coverage of issues relating to migration and concerns about mass immigration. Our inquiry would give Australians a direct voice to raise their concerns. Under the proposed terms of reference, the committee would investigate the adequacy and independence of the ABC Ombudsman. Right now, the ABC has structured its complaints system so that it investigates itself, it determines whether it has breached its own standards and, in too many cases, arguably, it absolves itself without, perhaps, proper scrutiny. So we need to ask the question of whether Australians deserve an improved complaints mechanism which is independent, transparent, timely and perhaps more accountable.

Under the ABC Act, what can the Minister for Communications do when the ABC breaches its statutory duties? Right now, it appears almost nothing. More often than not, the government turns a blind eye even when the ABC gets things very badly wrong, as it did in the Heston Russell case. And, of course, that was at enormous cost to Mr Russell personally and caused taxpayers to lose many millions of dollars. So we do need to ask what more can be done when the ABC seriously transgresses these most important obligations.

I reiterate again that the ABC is an important national institution, but that does not place it beyond scrutiny. It is funded by taxpayers. It is governed and also protected by statute. It carries immense influence. With that comes a solemn responsibility to uphold the highest standards of journalism. Australians deserve a public broadcaster they can trust in every respect, especially in times of crisis, conflict, emergency and national debate. This inquiry is how we can rebuild that trust. It is how we can properly ensure accountability. It also is how we can better support ABC journalists, producers, editors and content makers.

There have been many occasions at the ABC when very-high-profile presenters and journalists received a lot of attention and some very favourable consideration, and many hardworking younger journalists, who weren't as high profile, were disregarded—and I particularly point out the hardworking journalists in regional Australia, where they sometimes struggle to get basic equipment to do their job. I'm really keen to ensure what we can do as a parliament to better support our journalists who work extremely hard to tell the most important Australian stories.

This inquiry is how we restore the ABC to the standards that the Australian people expect and deserve in every respect. I commend this inquiry to the Senate.