Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of Senator Henderson's referral of this matter, this evening. Anywhere else in the world in 2025 a woman fighting to defend her right to a single-sex space would be front-page news. This isn't theoretical or hypothetical. In April, the UK supreme court heard the For Women Scotland case and confirmed that the UK's Equality Act 2010 does protect women's rights to their own spaces and services. It was all over the news and the media in the United Kingdom. Yet, here in Australia, if you relied on our taxpayer funded national broadcaster, you would have no idea that we are facing our own landmark test case here.

Roxanne Tickle v Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd & Anor will shape the future of women's rights in this country, but you wouldn't know it from the ABC's coverage. The Tickle v Giggle case has seen Australian entrepreneur Sal Grover taken to the court to defend her right to operate her online platform Giggle for Girls to the exclusion of males. While the Australian and Sky News have reported on this case extensively, the ABC has barely touched it. Even its own watchdog, Media Watch, has conceded that there are gaps in Aunty's reporting. That isn't journalism. That's just selective reporting, and it's not good enough.

When the ABC chooses silence, Australians are denied the truth, and it is a disgrace that this is happening from our national broadcaster. The Tickle v Giggle case isn't about personalities or politics. It's about whether women can have spaces exclusively for women, spaces that are safe and fair and free from compromise. It is about rights, it is about fairness and it is about safety. When our national broadcaster ignores that, it fails in its duty under its charter to inform Australians impartially.

Let's not pretend that this biased reporting is new. In 2022, I lodged a complaint about an ABC article titled 'Trans women's participation in sport has been framed as an election issue. This is what some trans athletes think'. The ABC's own review of that article found it to be materially misleading. The then chair of the ABC, Ita Buttrose, in correspondence to me, admitted serious editorial lapses had occurred in relation to the article and called them regrettable. Those aren't my words. They are Ms Buttrose's. Yet, three years later, the ABC still refuses to even touch this subject, let alone provide balanced coverage. Why? Because, when the facts clash with ideology, silence becomes the strategy.

Australians deserve better. The ABC is funded by taxpayers. It is not a private blog site. It is a public institution with obligations—obligations to report impartially, to cover all sides and to trust the public to make up its own mind. When the ABC fails to do this, it erodes trust, not only in the institution of the ABC itself but in the entire media ecosystem. Tickle v Giggle isn't a fringe issue; it is a test case for whether women's rights still matter in Australia. If women cannot have spaces of their own, whether it's in sport, online, in shelters or in prisons, then where does that leave the rights of women in Australia? These aren't abstract debates. These are debates about acknowledging biological reality and the rights that flow from that. Women have fought for decades to secure spaces where they can compete fairly, recover safely and connect freely. Those rights should not be erased quietly because a broadcaster finds the conversation uncomfortable or because its agenda is being manipulated by a lobbyist group.

I call on the ABC to do its job. Cover the case of Tickle v Giggle. Ask the hard questions. Interview both sides. Let Australians hear the arguments and make up their own minds. That is what journalism is supposed to be. Anything less is advocacy by omission. This parliament shouldn't stand by while taxpayer funded media is picking winners and losers in important debates. We cannot allow silence to become censorship. Women's rights aren't negotiable. They're not a trend. They are a cornerstone of fairness in our society. So I say this: Australians deserve the truth. They deserve coverage that is balanced, fearless and complete. They deserve a national broadcaster that respects its charter, not one that hides behind ideology. Tickle v Giggle matters. Women's rights matter. It's time the ABC started treating them that way.

Leah Blyth (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Stronger Families and Stronger Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support Senator Henderson's motion referring this matter to the Environment and Communications References Committee. The ABC receives about $1.1 billion in taxpayer funding each year. This funding will increase by $30 million each year until 2029. With that level of public investment, there comes a responsibility to uphold the highest standards of accuracy and impartiality. Australians expect their public broadcaster to get the facts right, present issues fairly and correct mistakes quickly. Last year, the ABC received about 4,000 editorial and content complaints, with only 56 breaches upheld. The majority of complaints were not even investigated. This level of public concern makes it clear why oversight of the ABC is necessary.

Senator Henderson has rightly said the ABC's editorial division has been allowed to run wild and is no longer fit for purpose as a taxpayer funded source of trusted news. I'll go through and highlight some of the examples, but I will take some out because my colleague Senator Henderson has covered some of them. In 2019, the ABC aired serious allegations accusing fellow senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, who was then deputy mayor of Alice Springs, of spreading racist vitriol and hate speech. The claims were unverified. In 2021, two years later, the ABC apologised after a defamation action confirmed that the allegations were, in fact, false. The ABC admitted it failed to verify those statements before broadcasting them.

They took a now senator through two years of a defamation trial at the taxpayers' expense, only to be found to have never verified the statements that they broadcast. In January 2023, the ABC's report on a community meeting in Alice Springs was found by the ombudsman to breach accuracy and impartiality standards. The ABC relied heavily on just one attendee, who described the event as a 'white supremacist fest', and ignored the broader community perspective. The ABC also understated the crowd size, reporting hundreds when more than 2,000 locals were present peacefully. The ombudsman ruled that the story misrepresented both the tone and the scale of the meeting, and the ABC was forced to correct and re-edit the story.

These two instances show a clear pattern. We can keep going. In October 2023, the Federal Court ruled that the ABC defamed former commando Heston Russell, yet another trial that was paid for by you, the Australian taxpayer. In May 2025, the ABC news repeatedly reported that 14,000 babies would die in 48 hours in Gaza. The statistic was incorrect and was based on a misstatement by a UN spokesperson in an earlier BBC interview. The ABC repeated the claim across multiple programs and took a full week to correct it. The ombudsman found a clear accuracy breach and a breach for failing to correct a significant error promptly. This mistake spread misinformation and showed weak fact-checking and weak correction processes. I could keep going on. In recent weeks, I've seen a doctored photograph of my colleague Senator Hume on Insiders, which again raises questions about the ABC's editorial judgement. These examples matter. What we see here are unverified and one-sided claims, misrepresentations of events, failures of investigative fairness, major factual inaccuracies and editing choices that distort context. These are not isolated, one-off mistakes. They point to a systemic weakness in editorial processes.

And what about the accountability to the Australian people and the taxpayers who fund this journalism? Public funding comes attached with accountability. The ABC is funded by Australians. That is $1.1 billion of taxpayer dollars every single year. Australians deserve confidence that this funding delivers factual, balanced and trustworthy journalism. Independence is important, but it does not mean that the ABC should be exempt from scrutiny.

This inquiry will allow the Senate to examine whether editorial standards are being upheld, complaints processes are independent and effective, and corrections are made in a timely and transparent manner. This is a constructive process. It ensures the ABC meets the high standards that it sets for itself. That is why it is time for a transparent, independent inquiry into the ABC's impartiality. Australians deserve to have confidence that their national broadcaster upholds the highest standards of fairness, accuracy and balance. An inquiry would not be about attacking journalists nor about controlling content. It is about restoring public trust in our national broadcaster. With rising concerns about political bias, selective reporting and uneven scrutiny, Australians deserve transparency and accountability in our public broadcaster. We must ensure that the ABC truly serves all Australians. The ABC needs to be held to the standards as set out in its charter, a charter that is rightfully attached because it is publicly funded.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are not supporting this inquiry. We've seen four years, in my time, of ideological attacks against the ABC. In that time, I've seen so many of those opposite who seek to bring down the ABC and seek to insult the ABC. But today, upstairs, there's the ABC showcase. I wonder how many of those opposite have gone up there and taken advantage of the hospitality, taken a little tote bag with little goodies in it and had a great time engaging in all the great things that the ABC offers us and provides to the Australian people, before coming in here and playing an ideological game.

The kind of kneejerk attacks that I've seen—I spent three years chairing the estimates session that covers the ABC and watched that session grow to up to three hours of questioning at a time for the ABC. They should be accountable, open to questioning and open to having the people in this chamber making sure that what they are doing is appropriate and in line with what we expect. We've seen attack after attack proven to not be correct. There are occasions, of course, when complaints are made and they are upheld, and at every point the ABC is open and transparent about those things. There is a complaints process for a reason.

The ABC is a highly trusted source of news. They bring not only a balanced news service—which I know many of those opposite don't like because balanced news is maybe not their vibe, and they're much happier on 'Sky after dark'—but also amazing current affairs and documentaries about spectacular things in this country—critical things that people in this country want to hear about. They also bring us some of the most amazing drama across the world. They bring us fantastic children's content. This is where Bluey came from. Many of us in this chamber have had our photos taken hugging Bluey. Bluey has gone on to great things.

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who doesn't love Bluey?

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Exactly—who doesn't love Bluey? But there's a line here. There's a balance here. Of course there are going to be complaints against any news service, and of course we need to hold them to account. But we see these ideological attacks, championed by Senator Henderson, who used to work there. I'm not sure if that ended well or badly, but it looks to me like it might have ended badly given the vitriol that I've seen over and over and over again from Senator Henderson towards our friends at the ABC. That's all I have to say. I'll allow you time to put the vote before we go to adjournment.

Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Henderson, you have a point of order?

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

Yes. The reflection on me is an imputation in breach of the standing orders.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw, Senator Henderson.

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

That's quite untrue, Senator Grogan. I had a wonderful nine years at the ABC—

Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Henderson, it's not a debating point. Are you seeking withdrawal?

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

I'd like the record to stand as I've just said it.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sit down!

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

Don't speak to me like that, Senator Gallagher. This is a matter for the—

Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Henderson, please take your seat. Senator Grogan, I understand you withdrew.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm happy to withdraw twice.

Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Grogan. You have the call.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm done, thank you very much, Acting Deputy President.

Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There being no other speakers, the question is that the motion moved by Senator Henderson be agreed to. A division having been called, and it now being the time for the Senate to commence adjournment, that division will be deferred.