The broadcasting watchdog has found the ABC breached impartiality guidelines in a Four Corners report about water rights buybacks in the Murrumbidgee valley by not including enough of the government’s perspective – even though officials refused to give interviews.
The July 2019 program looked at the federal government’s water grants for farmers under the Murray-Darling basin plan. It examined whether the water grants were a “colossal waste of taxpayer money” and whether “multimillion-dollar subsidies have been secretly handed to big business”.
The program immediately raised the ire of the agriculture lobby: the National Farmers’ Federation accused the ABC of inaccurate reporting and Cotton Australia said it misrepresented the Murray-Darling basin plan.
The NFF complained to the Australian Communications and Media Authority that the program included inaccurate statements, misled viewers by omitting key information, and lacked impartiality by unfairly favouring critical views.
Acma’s investigation found that while Cash Splash was not inaccurate it did breach the ABC’s own impartiality standards.
The watchdog said while it was acceptable for Four Corners to present critical commentary, the program did not present enough of the other side of the debate.
Acma’s chair, Nerida O’Loughlin, said the program omitted key information about the operation of the schemes which meant the viewers couldn’t make up their own minds.
“Australian audiences expect the ABC to give proper treatment to differing perspectives when exploring controversial issues,” O’Loughlin said.
“Unfortunately, on this occasion, this did not occur. Although the producers of the program explored legitimate criticisms, Four Corners had a responsibility to acknowledge other perspectives on the matter of contention in a meaningful way.”
The ABC told Acma that the environment minister, Sussan Ley, and bureaucrats from the relevant department had declined on-camera interviews and told producers that no one from the government would comment for the story.
Officials did give briefings but shifted responsibility to other departments, the ABC said.
Acma acknowledged the refusal of officials to take part but said that shouldn’t have prevented the program from presenting their perspective.
“The decisions by government officials and ministers to decline interviews, and the restrictions placed on the ABC’s use of information provided in background briefings, constrained its ability to represent these perspectives on the program, both in a general sense about the Infrastructure Scheme, and in responding to particular points of criticism,” the Acma said.
“However, the Acma is not persuaded that the refusals by government officials and the minister to participate prevented the ABC from presenting the principal relevant perspective on the matters of contention.”
The program did feature interviews with farmers and irrigators with first-hand experience of the scheme and included the views of a range of former government insiders, experts and lawyers, the ABC said.
Acma said the program should have acknowledged “in a meaningful way” that “aspects of the infrastructure scheme were contested and other views existed”. “For example, while the program referred to government views about water returned to the environment, there was no detailed explanation of what those views were,” the report said.
Huge respect for the farmers who spoke to #4Corners, despite enormous industry pressure to keep the extravagant $5.6b water infrastructure scheme afloat #auspol #murraydarling #murraydarlingbasin pic.twitter.com/1UlG5hvZuP
— Sean Rubinsztein-Dunlop (@seanrubinsztein) July 8, 2019
The ABC has “respectfully disagrees” with the finding and has warned that it “risks suppressing investigative or ‘accountability’ journalism through a distorted application of the standards under the code”.
“The code does not require that a balance of perspectives on matters of contention be presented in a single program, nor does it oblige journalism of this nature to take steps to moderate the impact of a deliberate decision not to participate,” the ABC said after the Acma report was handed down on Tuesday.
“A full diversity of perspectives on the issues raised were subsequently canvassed in other ABC programs, including from stakeholders who had refused to participate in the original story.”
The industry lobbied against this Four Corners report even before it went to air. As Guardian Australia reported last year the NFF was instructing members how to complain about it well in advance and the NSW Irrigators’ Council wrote to parliamentarians to “provide some balance to the ABC Four Corners’ Show last night” – but sent the email days before the show was aired.
The NFF said on Tuesday the Acma investigation was a vindication of its concerns but criticised the length of time it took to report.
The NFF has today welcomed ACMA’s finding that the ABC breached impartiality rules when Four Corners sought to report on the Murray Darling Basin in July 2019 💧🌾 Read the full statement👇 @nswirrigators @CottonAustralia @Nat_Irrigators @NSWFarmers https://t.co/RSto5zFkUm
— National Farmers' Federation (@NationalFarmers) December 14, 2020
“To a mere lay person, a core tenet of journalism is presenting two sides of the story,” said the NFF chief executive, Tony Mahar. “In this case, our tax-payer funded, national broadcaster has failed miserably.
“Disturbingly, by not being impartial and by unduly favouring one perspective, the ABC has called into question the integrity and the motives of farmers who accessed the now-complete grants program.”
