ABC boss faces brutal grilling over public broadcaster’s failures in tense senate hearing

[0:00] and I'll go to questions and send the answer. [0:02] Thank you very much, Chair. [0:03] Mr Marks and to your team, good morning. [0:05] Thank you very much for your attendance this morning. [0:09] Mr Stephens has resigned quite suddenly. [0:12] I just put on the record that I did ask [0:14] for Mr Stephens to attend estimates this morning, [0:19] along with the chair, Mr Williams. [0:21] Can you explain why Mr Stephens has resigned? [0:26] I think, Senator, it's a difficult role. [0:29] The head of news at the ABC, [0:30] I think after four years, [0:32] and with, you know, obviously intense scrutiny, [0:36] not only from externally the organisation, [0:39] but also it is a very important [0:42] and significant part of the ABC's operations. [0:45] Not the only part, but a significant part. [0:47] I think Mr Stephens felt, you know, [0:50] it was the right time for him to move on [0:51] and pursue other careers. [0:53] And I think it's an opportunity, obviously, [0:55] for the ABC to enter into a new phase of operations [0:59] where we look to, you know, refresh and rejuvenate our output [1:03] for what might be, you know, the next 20 years, [1:06] to make sure that we're fit for the future. [1:10] There has been a lot of controversy [1:11] about a range of decisions made by Mr Stephens, [1:15] including, most notably, the Heston Russell case, [1:19] the fake gunshots scandal and how that was managed by the ABC, [1:23] but many other concerns, [1:25] including in relation to bias by ABC News and current affairs. [1:32] Can I assume, Mr Marks, [1:36] that Mr Stephens was encouraged to resign very strongly? [1:41] Oh, Senator, I think it's inappropriate for me [1:44] to go into detail on specific staff matters, [1:47] but, and give any further background on that, [1:52] other than what we've already said in our public statements [1:54] and what I've mentioned today. [1:55] But as I said when I first answered the question, [1:58] it is an opportunity for us to move forward [2:00] and look at a refreshed and rejuvenated output [2:03] as we work out what, you know, the future of the ABC is. [2:07] Can I put it to you that there were too many instances [2:10] where Mr Stephens made the wrong judgement [2:14] and I think the decision that has been made [2:18] is the right decision, but this is well over time. [2:23] Did you... I understand what you say. [2:27] You don't want to go into personal matters, [2:30] but it does very much look like he was pushed, [2:35] he was encouraged to resign. [2:37] He was on the chopping block. [2:39] I think it's well known within and outside the ABC. [2:43] And so I would ask you, [2:46] what is going to change after the Justin Stephens era? [2:51] No, thanks, Senator. [2:53] Yeah, look, as we go into a future that is rapidly changing, [2:59] it's been happening for many years, [3:00] but it continues at a pace, you know, [3:04] it calls into question what our strategic priorities are [3:07] in all of our output. [3:09] The ABC obviously has a number of core responsibilities, [3:13] many things that only we do now, [3:15] and we carry that weight very seriously [3:19] for the benefit of audiences and the public. [3:22] News and current affairs in particular [3:24] is an area that is fast-paced. [3:27] Obviously, the output of the organisation has been built [3:29] based on a historic... [3:31] ..aggregation of formats and people and processes. [3:39] And I guess we are at a time as an organisation [3:42] where we need to say what has served us in the past [3:45] may not serve us well in the future. [3:47] And this applies to all of our divisions, [3:49] not just news and current affairs. [3:50] And I expect across this year [3:53] that there is a lot of work that will go on in the organisation [3:56] to position us better for a future. [3:58] And that includes news and current affairs, [4:00] that includes screen, [4:02] it includes audio, [4:03] all of our areas, I think, with the change that's gone on. [4:06] There are two main things that I've got to deal with. [4:09] One is, I think, we keep asking our people to do more, [4:13] to occupy more platforms, [4:16] to be in more places at more times. [4:19] And that pressure of more, I think, [4:23] is something that we've got to solve for [4:25] and be very specific and focused on [4:27] what we think is going to be our best and most effective output [4:30] and our best and most effective platforms. [4:31] But can I just put to you that doing more [4:33] is not necessarily doing things better? [4:35] No, I agree. [4:36] I mean, surely the ABC should be just sticking to its knitting, [4:39] to core business. [4:40] Well, I agree, Senator. [4:41] Doing more, actually, is likely never better. [4:45] Doing more often leads to spreading your resources too thinly. [4:48] Doing more often leads to unreasonable pressures [4:50] on the teams doing the job. [4:52] I think being very focused on the things [4:54] that we intend to do well [4:56] is definitely a big part of the future. [4:58] I mean, Mr Marks, I've been raising these issues [5:00] for many years in Senate estimates. [5:04] But there's just been systemic cases of bias within the ABC. [5:09] And when some journalists, not all, [5:11] but when the journalists involved have made these errors, [5:15] too often the ABC has backed them in [5:18] rather than appreciate that we've made a mistake [5:22] and that we need to correct that mistake. [5:24] There's been this terrible culture of defensiveness [5:29] when the ABC makes egregious errors. [5:32] And I'd put to you that for far too long, the ABC has tolerated this. [5:38] And that has impacted very seriously on the reputation of the ABC. [5:43] Yeah, there's a couple of things you mentioned there, [5:46] Senator, I think worth picking up. [5:49] I'll go with the second point first, errors. [5:52] Occasionally, the ABC does make errors, as all media organisations do. [5:56] I agree with you that it is important that when we make an error, [5:59] we acknowledge it and rectify it. [6:02] And you will have seen a situation recently [6:04] where there was a piece of a bit of work out of our office [6:10] in Adelaide in the BTN High example that dealt with education, [6:14] which when it got to me, identified it as an error [6:17] and it was removed almost immediately from our website. [6:20] So I think under my tenure, I have been very focused [6:24] on ensuring that the culture of defensiveness, [6:27] we defend where it is appropriate, [6:29] but we acknowledge our errors when we have made them. [6:32] And I think evidence, I think in my tenure, [6:35] would suggest that we have got a lot better at that. [6:37] When it comes to the allegation of bias in the organisation, [6:40] we don't accept the notion that there is systemic bias within the ABC. [6:46] In fact, the evidence of complaint processes [6:49] and the like would suggest that's not proven in fact. [6:53] We acknowledge the importance of impartiality as the organisation [6:57] and the constant focus on impartiality. [6:59] There is an incredible amount of work that goes to ensure [7:02] that we fulfil our charter obligations on that front. [7:06] But we certainly don't accept the allegation of systemic bias [7:10] bias as a default within the organisation. [7:13] Well, there's been the systemic complaints [7:15] about the ABC's coverage of Gaza and Israel. [7:20] The Jewish community in this country is up in arms [7:23] about the way in which these matters have been depicted. [7:26] I mean, I will be addressing a number of these issues [7:29] through the session this morning. [7:33] But I did particularly want to ask the Chair to appear this morning, [7:36] and I may well seek an order in the Senate so that he does appear next time, [7:42] because Mr Williams' comments about the Israeli Prime Minister, [7:50] when he described him in an article as an aberrant creature, [7:55] I mean, what sort of standard is that when you've got the chair of the ABC [8:01] indulging in that sort of personal criticism, [8:07] I mean, if that's the standard that's being set by the chair, [8:14] how can your journalists, almost, what, 2,000 or so journalists [8:18] and other people working in News and Current Affairs, [8:22] be expected to comply with the statutory responsibility, [8:27] to be impartial and to be accurate when you've got the chair? [8:31] So I mean, that's sort of appalling example. Mr Marks. [8:36] I think when those comments were made, Senator, [8:38] I think the ABC was very clear that they represented comments by Mr Williams [8:43] and not a reflective of the ABC. [8:44] That's not an excuse. [8:45] You can't put a Chinese wall through your own body. [8:47] That's no excuse. [8:49] Well, there is a Chinese wall. [8:51] I am the editor-in-chief of the organisation. [8:54] Mr Williams sits on the board of the organisation, [8:56] chairs the board of the organisation. [8:58] The editorial part of the organisation is independent of the board [9:04] and that's reflected in the legislation. [9:06] So, yes, I acknowledge that those comments were less than desired or ideal. [9:14] I think Mr Williams regrets making them. [9:16] I think he said it in the article at the time. [9:19] It's not an indicator to our staff in any way to change their behaviour [9:24] in compliance of the codes and standards that we abide to in the work that we do. [9:29] Well, I have to say, Mr Marks, it's not acceptable to defend this in any way [9:33] on the basis that they were his personal views. [9:36] Because Mr Williams occupies a very significant role at the ABC. [9:41] He is the chair and everything he says matters. [9:44] And if he engages in that sort of personal abuse, [9:48] which is just, frankly, completely unacceptable, [9:54] then you, as the editor-in-chief, should not tolerate that. [9:57] Because that reflects that. [9:59] How can you do your job when your own chair is engaging in that sort of behaviour? [10:04] Senator, I don't have difficulty in distancing myself from comments [10:10] that I think are not reflective of where the organisation wants to be. [10:13] I don't find that challenging. [10:16] As I said, I think he would regret making those comments. [10:18] He regrets anything that could anyway be seen as damaging the reputation of the ABC. [10:23] He's a passionate advocate for the organisation and its work. [10:27] And I guess I've answered the question by outlining the distinction [10:32] that's in legislation between us as the management and the board of the organisation. [10:35] I mean, I had great hope for the ABC when Mr Williams started. [10:39] He made some very significant comments that he did not want to see activism in the ABC. [10:45] He wanted the highest standards of journalism, not activism. [10:50] And yet he engages in this sort of behaviour. [10:55] And, you know, I just, I guess I would like an undertaking [11:00] that we're not going to see that sort of conduct from the ABC chair, [11:04] whether or not it's his personal views. [11:06] There's no justification for it, Mr Marks. [11:08] Mr Marks. [11:09] Unfortunately, Senator, it's not my role to tell the chair of the organisation what to do, [11:15] but we've... [11:15] Well, I actually disagree. [11:18] You're the editor-in-chief. [11:19] Well, my... [11:20] The buck stops with you in terms of information disseminated by the ABC. [11:27] And so therefore, I actually think, as editor-in-chief, that is your role. [11:33] Well, those comments weren't disseminated by the ABC. [11:36] They were disseminated by another media organisation. [11:39] Um, they don't... [11:39] No, no. [11:40] No, hang on. [11:41] I'm sorry, Senator Henderson. [11:42] I appreciate it. [11:43] We just need to let the witness answer and then we'll come back to you. [11:46] They were disseminated by the ABC chair. [11:47] Mr Marks needs to be allowed to finish at least a sentence or two, [11:50] and then we'll come back. [11:52] I've lost my train of thought now, Senator. [11:55] Um, look, the comments were made by Mr Williams. [11:58] We immediately commented that they were, you know, personal views. [12:01] I know he regrets making them. [12:03] Um, he says as much in the article. [12:05] The rest of the organisation takes no guidance from those comments. [12:08] Um, as you say, I... [12:10] The role of editor-in-chief, uh, sits with me, [12:13] and it is up to me to ensure that we comply with our editorial standards, [12:18] and where we don't, to ensure that we take appropriate action. [12:20] You've made an announcement that you'll be seeking an external appointment [12:25] to replace Mr Stevens. [12:28] What's the reason for that, Mr Marks? [12:30] I don't think we've made, uh, that announcement, Senator. [12:32] Oh, well, it's been briefed. [12:33] It's been briefed out. [12:34] Put it that way. [12:34] That's been inferred by... [12:35] By ABC? [12:36] Well, probably, but that's okay. [12:38] It's been inferred by media. [12:39] Um, I expect... [12:40] Well, I think it might have been briefed out, Mr Marks. [12:42] Um... [12:44] Anyway, anyway. [12:45] It happens. [12:45] All right, Senators, I appreciate... [12:48] Give me one moment, please, Senator Henderson. [12:50] Yeah, sure. [12:51] I'm conscious of, um, the desire to get in, [12:53] but if we can have questions and answers, please, [12:55] just so we keep today orderly. [12:57] Thank you very much. [12:58] So, can I ask, uh, is that... [13:00] Is that the case? [13:01] You will be making an external appointment, [13:03] and what's the reason for that? [13:05] Uh, Senator, um, it's a really important role. [13:08] It's important that we get someone of the highest calibre to perform this role. [13:12] Um, uh, it is something that, you know, [13:15] I'm always looking at who are the best executives that could, uh, [13:18] could, uh, affect... [13:20] Um, operate effectively as part of their responsibilities of the ABC. [13:23] Um, I've met a number of people over the years, [13:26] um, uh, who might be opportunities for that role. [13:30] Um, I expect an announcement will be made imminently, [13:33] um, and we will, we will proceed with, uh, a candidate who I think has the potential to, [13:40] to lead the organisation editorial into, into a bright future. [13:44] Thank you very much, Mr. Marks. [13:47] I do want to go into another issue, Chair. [13:48] Am I just able to continue? [13:49] Yes, please. [13:50] Yeah, thank you. [13:51] Uh, look, this goes to the editorial decision-making by the ABC, [13:56] and I want to raise, uh, the conflict of interest concerns involving Ms. Sarah Ferguson, [14:05] who took on the role as executive producer of the documentary Sentient. [14:10] Now, there's been some FOI documents released. [14:14] I do appreciate and commend the ABC for releasing those documents properly, [14:21] because, as we know, often with these things, [14:24] the bigger story becomes the cover-up, not what actually happened. [14:27] So, I, I really do commend the ABC for being transparent when we are, [14:32] when there are FOI requests, uh, made in relation to documentation. [14:38] But it is extraordinary to me, Mr. Marks, [14:41] and it just would never have been permitted under no circumstances. [14:46] When I was hosting the Victorian edition of the 730 Report, [14:49] there is no way that I could have been the executive producer of a documentary [14:55] funded by an activist organisation, which is highly political, [15:00] which campaigned against the Coalition, [15:03] and it doesn't actually matter who they campaigned against. [15:06] How could the standard be set that the ABC would permit [15:11] one of its leading current affairs presenters to be the executive producer of a documentary [15:19] funded by an activist organisation, which completely undermines trust in the ABC? [15:26] When it comes to issues of impartiality. [15:31] Thank you, Senator. [15:32] Look, um, I, I can't, uh, talk to the specific examples of what happened back in the past, [15:37] as to when that documentary was started. [15:39] I understand that it was based on an idea, uh, that at the time when Ms. Ferguson had time, [15:46] she was tossing around as an idea for a project. [15:48] Obviously, that project was taken forward by other people that did not involve Ms, uh, [15:53] Ms Ferguson, sorry, I almost called her Ms Henderson there for a minute. [15:58] Ms Ferguson, um, Ms Ferguson had no active role in the production of the program, [16:03] had no active role in the financing of the program. [16:06] Obviously, when it came to us, uh, with the notion that, um, she did, [16:10] was involved in the original conception of an idea and that that was going to be a credit, [16:15] it was important that we were transparent with the public to make sure that credit was, [16:18] uh, was on the, on the film so that there was going to be no cover up, as you say. [16:24] Um, but she had no role. [16:25] I mean, I've been an executive producer on so many projects, [16:28] probably more than everybody else in this building combined. [16:30] Um, the role of executive producer can mean many things. [16:33] But you weren't the, you weren't posting a current affairs program at the time [16:37] and you weren't subject to statutory obligations to report impartially and accurately. [16:44] So these are very special positions occupied by the likes of Ms Ferguson. [16:48] Sure, Senator. [16:49] And there are very high expectations in relation to impartiality. [16:55] So how could that standard be set at the ABC? [16:59] Because once that sort of decision is made, you know, what, [17:03] are we going to see this on an ongoing basis? [17:05] I don't believe so, Senator, no. [17:08] I think we, we look at those things very seriously. [17:10] But as I said, Ms Ferguson wasn't involved in the production of the program. [17:14] So I don't think the public should have concerns that, that it represents her views, [17:18] that it represents her political opinion, [17:20] or that it compromises her ability in any way to do her role. [17:24] I think we can feel confident about those matters. [17:26] I mean, it may be that a film comes out a year or two years time, [17:29] it's got my name on as executive producer because of work that I did 20 years ago. [17:33] Not that I know of Senator, but you never know. [17:36] You never know. [17:36] But that is prior to you being the editor-in-chief [17:40] and the managing director of the ABC. [17:42] I would... [17:42] And this credit was work prior to her becoming... [17:45] Well, no, but the point is, [17:46] and I'm looking at your conflict of interest external work request guidelines, [17:51] ABC staff are required to seek approval before any external work, [17:57] no matter what it is, is approved. [18:00] Oh, sure. [18:00] And so Ms Ferguson, in this case, did not seek prior approval. [18:06] And even worse, Mr Marks, as I've subsequently discovered, [18:11] in fact, not only did she not seek prior approval, [18:19] she's listed as the executive producer on Screen Australia's website of this sentient [18:25] documentary five months before she even raised it with the ABC. [18:29] Senator, again, in the film and television sector, you're involved in a million ideas. [18:38] Like, you can't stop people thinking, you can't stop people talking or creating. [18:42] Your point, which is, what is the appropriate time should something become real [18:48] for that to be subject to a consent mechanism? [18:51] So, again, her role, she would not have imagined when she was working on that original idea, [18:57] that that may have even become a project that would be brought to realisation. [19:01] So, is it appropriate for her at that time to tell us every idea that she's mentioning to [19:06] every person? No, no, no, that's not... [19:07] I don't know, but that's just the way it's rolled out. [19:09] That's not a fair characterisation. It's not about every idea. [19:14] She became the executive producer as published in 2025 on Screen Australia's website. [19:21] She did not seek approval from the ABC. [19:25] That does not comply with your requirements in relation to external work approval requests [19:33] and the process, the policy that you've put in place. [19:36] Thanks, Senator. I mean, I would expect that any external work would go through our external work [19:41] process. Mr Fang has been ensuring that those policies are robust and up-to-date. [19:48] Maybe if you want Mr Fang to discuss our external work policies, we can... [19:51] No, no, no. I want to discuss... What I'm discussing is Ms Ferguson's failure to comply [19:57] and also the fact that the ABC hasn't held her to the higher standard. [20:01] So, I did write to the Minister about this matter and seek a number of... and asked a number of [20:10] questions in relation to the management of conflicts of interest, because in the FOI documents, [20:19] Mr Stephens actually said, we will have to put in place conflict of interest management procedures. [20:25] So, what particular standards or processes will put in place to manage the conflict of interest [20:35] issues that could well arise by reason of Ms Ferguson's role as EP of Sentient? [20:41] Mr Fang, yeah. Senator, so firstly, you're referring to the external work guidelines. I mean, [20:48] I think as the managing director has indicated, Ms Ferguson's role in this documentary was in the [20:57] original ideas discussion. It was then picked up by somebody else. So, there was no external work... [21:02] But Mr Fang, hang on, are you saying that staff no longer are required to seek prior approval? [21:07] No, I'm not saying that. Right. Okay. Well, that's what's happened. So, I'm asking you to address [21:12] the non-compliance of your own procedures. So, not only did Ms Ferguson belatedly seek approval, [21:21] she also, as has been published on Screen Australia's website, she was listed as the EP five months prior. [21:28] She kept that... Well, she did not disclose that to the ABC. No, I understand that. And that, [21:34] and that, I would put to you, is not acceptable. And you should not accept that. [21:39] I understand the point you're making, Senator. The point that I'm making is that the key here around [21:47] this credit was that it is a disclosure issue for the audience. It wasn't an external work issue. [21:53] External work was not carried out. There was an idea. That idea was picked up by others. Ms Ferguson didn't [21:59] work on the documentary. So, what she did do was to disclose to the public when it was appropriate, [22:05] that she was going to get a credit. So, in that sense, she has disclosed these issues, [22:09] so that people know, when the documentary comes out, that she had a role in this original ideas discussion. [22:16] Well, that constitutes a breach of your own processes, Mr Fang. And, so, what I'm asking is, [22:24] what processes were put in place to manage, and what restrictions were placed on Ms Ferguson's [22:34] future coverage of Animals Australia, growing kindness, animal welfare, scientific testing, [22:40] or any related public policy issue? Yeah, look, I'm sorry, Senator. I don't agree that it's [22:44] a breach of the external work policy. External work didn't occur here. What occurred is that somebody [22:50] came up with an idea, and they were given a credit, and that credit led to a disclosure, [22:57] which Ms Ferguson did. So, in terms of what needs to be mitigated going forward, [23:02] she has disclosed that she got a credit on that particular documentary. The audience knows about [23:08] that, and they are aware that she worked on that documentary. I mean, I'm astounded by that, [23:14] Mr Fang, and that goes to the heart of the sorts of issues. This is the very defensiveness I'm talking [23:21] about. How can you say it's fine to suddenly crop up, to be the EP of a documentary funded by an [23:30] activist group, and there's no problem? So, so, the fact of the matter is, it is a conflict, [23:37] because, and I'm going to the very issue here, and it was even flagged by Mr Stevens that there were [23:46] conflicts, potential for conflicts. So, this is, Mr Marks, I'm sorry, but this is the culture of [23:54] defensiveness that has got to stop at the ABC. The ABC, Ms Ferguson has done the wrong thing here, [24:04] and the ABC should never have allowed this sort of situation to exist, where you've got [24:10] the head, the host of the current affairs program, as an EP of, and she didn't have to be the EP, [24:21] of an EP of an activist funded documentary. So, this is the very culture of defensiveness [24:30] that needs to be eradicated from the ABC. And not only did she not seek approval in a timely way, [24:38] she was listed by Screen Australia five months before as the EP. She never disclosed that to the ABC. [24:46] So, what I'm asking is, what restrictions, given the potential conflict of interest that have been [24:53] recognised by the ABC, what restrictions were placed on Ms Ferguson's future coverage of Animals Australia, [25:00] animal welfare, scientific testing, or other related public policy issues? [25:05] Well, Senator, sorry, it's not my intention to be defensive. I was just trying to have a [25:10] conversation about that particular policy. As I indicated, Ms Ferguson has disclosed her connection [25:19] to that documentary and the role that she played in it, which was coming up with this idea. [25:24] Mr Fang, she didn't disclose it to the ABC at the time she became the executive producer. That's the [25:30] very point I'm raising with you. She failed to disclose it because she was listed as the EP [25:37] on Screen Australia's website five months prior. Senator, what I'm saying is that what's important [25:44] in a situation like this is that it is disclosed appropriately to the audience. So, the audience [25:50] can make up their own minds about this connection. Okay. So, what restrictions have been placed on [25:54] her coverage of these matters? I've asked you three times now. I'm not aware of any [26:00] restrictions that have been placed on her coverage, other than, as I've said, she's disclosed [26:05] her connection and the audience can make up their own minds in the future about whether or not there's [26:09] any issue here. So, there's no restriction on... But at the moment, Senator, I cannot... [26:14] There's been no demonstrated conflict of interest. I think it's fair to say, Mr Fang, that our... [26:19] Mr Fang, are you serious? So, you think it's quite acceptable now for ABC journalists [26:26] to be working on documentaries funded by activist organisations, which are politically engaged and [26:35] which are very engaged in elections and the like? I mean... Senator, I think as we've answered... [26:42] I mean, seriously, Mr Marks, that is absolute rubbish. Senator, our view is... Of course there is a conflict. [26:51] Our view was, Ms Ferguson, was not working on the documentary, as you categorise, that she received [26:57] a credit for some historical work. Do we encourage our journalists to be working on activist funded [27:05] documentaries? No, we would not. That would not be consistent with our codes of practice. [27:09] Thank you, Mr Marks. No, let me... Please let Mr Marks finish. [27:14] I will let Mr Marks finish for a minute. And we have codes of practice and editorial [27:19] guidelines that are appropriate limitations and reflections to all of our people in terms of [27:24] the work that they do. And those codes of practice and guidelines would apply to any work done by Ms [27:29] Ferguson. So, I feel like we have the appropriate procedures. I can't talk to what happened when the [27:35] original idea was coming. I can't talk to when the credit was formulated or even Ms Ferguson knew [27:39] about the credit at the time as listed on Screen Australia. It did come up, and as Mr Fang said, [27:44] we felt it was important that it be disclosed.