1
Independent Review of ABC Complaint Handling Public Consultation Paper
About this review
This review of ABC complaint handling was commissioned by the ABC Board. In announcing the review on 18 October 2021, ABC Chair Ita Buttrose said the review was a timely initiative to ensure the ABC’s complaints handling procedures met audience expectations. The ABC’s role as an independent public broadcaster requires that it have the most robust of accountability processes. ABC Managing Director David Anderson commented that the ABC complaint handling processes were essential for maintaining transparency and accountability.
The ABC commissioned John McMillan and Jim Carroll to conduct the independent review.
McMillan has former experience in complaint handling and oversight as the Commonwealth and NSW Ombudsman and Australian Information Commissioner. Carroll has experience in public and commercial broadcasting as a news and current affairs director at both SBS and the Network Ten and a senior news executive at the Nine and Seven networks. Neither has worked with the ABC or been engaged by the Organisation for any other purpose.
Terms of Reference for the review have been published – see the Appendix. There are 11 terms of reference that cover all aspects of ABC procedures and practices for receiving and assessing complaints, acting on complaint findings, staff training, resourcing, and transparency in complaint handling.
The review commenced in October 2021. The reviewers undertook initial consultations with current and former ABC staff, ABC Board members and external observers in Australia and overseas. This Consultation Paper is being published to invite public comments and submissions on the issues being considered. Consultations will continue throughout this process.
The reviewers have been requested to prepare a final report to the ABC Board by March 2022.
It is expected that the report will later be released publicly.
The ABC editorial framework
The ABC complaint process deals with complaints about ABC non-compliance with the ABC editorial policies and standards. These form part of a larger compliance and editorial framework.
Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983
The Act establishes the ABC as a body corporate that is managed by the ABC Board of Directors and the Managing Director. The broadcasting functions and duties of the ABC are described in the Act as the ‘Charter of the Corporation’ – commonly dubbed the ABC Charter.
Three functions relevant to ABC editorial standards are –
‘to provide within Australia innovative and comprehensive broadcasting services of a high standard’
‘to provide … broadcasting programs that contribute to a sense of national identity and inform and entertain, and reflect the cultural diversity of, the Australian community’
‘broadcasting programs of an educational nature’. (s 6(1))
The Act refers to the ABC as the ‘independent national broadcasting service’.
2
The Board has a duty to develop codes of practice relating to programming matters and to notify these to the Australian Communications Media Authority (ACMA). Similarly, the ABC is required to take account of any broadcasting program standards adopted by ACMA.
Broadcasting Services Act 1992
The Act establishes ACMA to regulate broadcasting and similar services in the public interest.
With a few exceptions the regulatory regime established by the Act does not apply to the ABC.
One exception is that the ABC is to have regard to any broadcasting service standards determined by ACMA.
Another is that ACMA can receive and investigate a complaint from any person dissatisfied with the ABC’s response to a complaint alleging non-compliance with the ABC Code of Practice in relation to radio or television broadcasting. The person must first have complained to the ABC. ACMA’s role does not extend to ABC print or digital content.
ACMA may uphold a complaint and recommend to the ABC that it take action to comply with its editorial standards, or to publish an apology or retraction. ACMA may report to the Minister and the Parliament if it considers that the ABC has not taken appropriate action on an ACMA finding.
ABC editorial policies and guidance – principal documents
The ABC editorial standards are set out in several documents. These are enforceable through the ABC complaint handling procedures.
The key document is ‘ABC Editorial Policies’, which is a consolidated set of 13 Editorial Policies that are approved by the ABC Board. The Policies that figure most prominently in ABC complaints are those relating to ‘Accuracy’, ‘Corrections and clarifications’, ‘Impartiality and diversity of perspectives’ and ‘Harm and offence’. Other Policies cover matters such as privacy, children, public participation, advertising and commercial references.
Each Policy comprises a set of Standards that must be complied with. An example is the two Standards for the ‘Accuracy’ policy:
2.1 Make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented in context.
2.2 Do not present factual content in a way that will materially mislead the audience. In some cases, this may require appropriate labels or other explanatory information.
Each policy also includes a statement of Principles to aid interpretation and application of the Standards. For example, the Principles for the two Accuracy standards explain how
‘reasonable steps’ will be assessed; that the standards apply to assertions of fact and not expressions of opinion; quotations of opinions should be accurate; and querying, qualification, supplementation or correction may be required to ensure accuracy.
The Policies are individually revised from time to time. The most recent consolidation of all 13 Policies was published on 15 January 2019.
The Policies are supplemented by Editorial Guidance Notes that are authorised by the Managing Director. There are currently 35 Guidance Notes published on the ABC website.
They provide staff with detailed guidance on interpreting and complying with the Policies. For example, the Guidance Note on ‘Accuracy’ discusses the difference between fact and opinion, the reasonable steps required to verify a material fact, evaluation of facts presented by interviewees, and putting facts in context.
3
A recently-updated Guidance Note that has attracted public attention is the ‘Personal Use of Social Media Guidelines’. It distinguishes official ABC social media accounts (that are covered by a separate guidance note) from ABC staff personal accounts. The Guidance Note advises that a complaint received about content on a worker’s personal account will not be investigated or assessed as an editorial standards matter, but may give rise to a staff management issue.
A separate policy/standards document is the ‘Associated Standard on Television Program Classification’, approved by the Board. The Standard provides binding advice on applying the classification standards – G, PG, M and MA – in television broadcasting (with the exception of news, current affairs and sporting events).
Another key document is the ABC Code of Practice. This is adopted by the ABC Board as required by the ABC Act and is notified to ACMA. Complaints to ACMA are assessed against the Code of Practice. The substantive content of the Code replicates the documents described above. One part of the Code comprises seven of the ABC Policies (those relating to accuracy, corrections, impartiality, fair/honest dealing, privacy, harm/offence and children/young people). The other part comprises the standards on TV program classification.
ABC editorial standards and guidance – other documents
Several other documents set out standards or provide editorial guidance or commentary.
Among them:
Content Reviews: These are reports on reviews that have been specially commissioned by the ABC to review specific broadcasting issues. There are 26 reports published on the ABC website for the period 2014-21. Some of the reports are accompanied by an ABC or program team response. The review topics are typically thematic – such as ‘China Coverage’, ‘Impartiality of the Federal Election 2019’ and
‘Live Media Conferences’. An exception is ‘Exposed: The Ghost Train Fire’ review conducted by Rodney Tiffen and Chris Masters in August 2021, which is a review of a three-part television program.
The ABC website includes a summary of ‘Upheld complaints’, ‘Resolved complaints’
and ‘ACMA investigations’ (with a link to ACMA investigation reports). These pages outline the complaints investigated and explain the finding or resolution.
A quarterly statistical report is published on the audience complaints that have been finalised in that quarter. Details are given of complaint numbers, subject matter of complaints, resolution and timeliness.
Another ABC website page lists corrections and clarifications made to ABC content across radio, television and digital platforms, both in response to complaints and for other reasons.
The ABC complaints process
Complaints to the ABC can be resolved through several processes:
The ABC website hosts pages and links through which feedback, comments and complaints are invited. The webpage titles are illustrative – ‘Contact Us’, ‘Contact ABC News’, ‘Complaints Process’ and ‘Lodge a Complaint’. These sites are, in the main, managed or overseen by ABC Audience Support. A common message across the sites is that a matter will be forwarded to the complaints unit – ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs (ACA) – only if made on the online complaint form. Other feedback and
4
comments will be noted and may be responded to directly by either Audience Support or a program/content area.
ABC program/content areas also receive frequent feedback, commentary and complaints through their own web pages, social media sites, text messaging and telephone. These are mostly handled and responded to directly in accordance with the practices of the program areas. An editorial complaint (see below) is to be referred to ACA for assessment, even if the program area feels that it can effectively address the issue directly with a person.
The formal complaint process is managed by ACA in accordance with the ‘ABC Complaint Handling Procedures’, and a supplementary ‘Complaints Handling Guidance Note’. The Procedures have operated since 2011 and were last revised in August 2017.
The main elements of the complaint process set out in the Procedures and Guidance Note are:
The role of ACA is to investigate editorial complaints – that is, a written complaint that expresses dissatisfaction with an item of ABC content and directly or implicitly alleges that the item has breached the standards set out in the ABC Editorial Policies or Code of Practice. Editorial complaints are distinguished from non-editorial comments that, for example, are anonymous, relate to program scheduling, express a personal taste or preference about news and presentation, or are general in nature and do not refer to specific ABC content or services.
Before accepting a complaint for investigation, ACA will assess it against proportionality criteria that canvass the seriousness of a matter, the likelihood of harm, potential to mislead, complainant’s proximity to the matter, scale of audience response and the risk of damage to public trust and confidence in the ABC. The proportionality criteria recognise that there are competing ABC resource priorities and that some complainants wish only to be heard.
There are other discretionary grounds on which ACA can decline to investigate an editorial matter – for example, the matter is the subject of legal proceedings, the complaint is frivolous or vexatious, it was received more than 6 weeks after the content was last broadcast or published by the ABC, or the matter can more appropriately be referred to a content division for direct handling and response. With some exceptions, the general practice is to acknowledge all complaints.
A complaint that is accepted for investigation by ACA is notified to the content division, usually within 3 days. The division is required to respond to ACA within 7 days. ACA then decides on the extent of investigation that is warranted, including whether the complaint can be resolved without further investigation. Priority is given to resolving complaints by practical and appropriate steps within 30 days of initial ABC receipt of the complaint. A complaint can also be fast-tracked for early resolution.
The investigation of a complaint by ACA may involve further contact with the content division, and consultation with individual staff or contractors. Staff who may be adversely affected by the outcome of an investigation are to be given an opportunity to be heard.
5
ACA can finalise a complaint investigation by recording a finding of upheld, not upheld, partly upheld or resolved (through the steps outlined earlier). ACA may recommend a remedy for a complaint that is wholly or partly upheld. These matters are first notified to a division as a preliminary finding that it may accept (within 3 days) or contest (within 7 days). The final decision rests with ACA, and it must give reasons for its decision.
A complainant has a right to take a matter to ACMA, if dissatisfied with the ABC response or the matter has not been satisfactorily resolved within 60 days of a complaint being lodged. A complainant is to be advised of this option at various stages of the ABC complaint process. ACA is responsible for representing the ABC in any ACMA proceeding.
ACA is a separate unit within the ABC; it was established in 2000 and comprises 5 staff. ACA is typically described as a unit that is independent of content making areas. It is part of the Editorial Policies Division of the ABC, which is headed by the ABC Editorial Director. The Director is kept abreast of ACA complaints work but does not play a role in the resolution of individual complaints.
ACA reports to the Board through the Editorial Director, and provides a report on its complaints work to each Board meeting. The head of ACA can directly approach the ABC Managing Director.
The ABC Editorial Director has several editorial oversight roles:
providing pre-publication advice and, when necessary, approval before an item is published
overseeing editorial policy, guidance and training within the ABC
assessing content that has been published, and managing content reviews
chairing the ABC Editorial Policy Group (of which the head of ACA is a member)
reporting to the Board on the ABC complaints process.
Audience and Consumer Affairs complaint activity
Statistics on complaints received by the ABC and handled by ACA are published and updated regularly on the ABC website. The following table lists matters referred by ABC Audience Support to ACA for assessment as editorial complaints. The matters assessed as editorial complaints but not investigated by ACA were referred to content teams for direct handling.
(The figures for 2021 are to the end of October, ie, 10 months.)
2019 2020 2021 Complaints assessed by ACA 5950 7141 6233
Editorial complaints 3157 3701 2996
Investigated complaints 1532 1530 1275
Outcome of investigated issues*
Not upheld 1200 1556 1168
Upheld 83 87 61
Resolved** 390 215 233
* A single complaint can raise more than one issue.
** A matter is resolved when a content area takes appropriate steps to remedy the cause of the complaint and a further finding of upheld/not upheld would add nothing of substance. For example, published content may have been revised, a written apology was given to a complainant, or an on-air or online correction was made.
6
An ACA breakdown of complaints about ABC News in a 12 month period covering April 2020 – April 2021 illustrates the range of issues handled in the period:
ACA finalised 2,738 editorial complaints (raising 2,907 issues); ACA investigated 35%
of complaints and referred 63% to content teams for direct handling.
ACA upheld 50 of the 1,126 complaint issues it investigated (4.4%); 80% were not upheld, and 15.5% were resolved by appropriate steps being taken within a content area.
ACA recorded 34 editorial breaches – including 11 about 7pm TV News content, and 6 about ABC News Online content; there were 19 breaches of harm and offence standards, 11 of accuracy standards, 2 of impartiality standards, and 2 for commercial references.
The average ACA response time for investigated complaints was 20 days; 77% of investigated complaints received an ACA response within the target of 30 days.
The main complaint topics in editorial complaints about ABC News in that period were:
- COVID-19 (over 700 complaints); two-thirds complained of inaccuracy or bias - US election coverage (over 120); 60% complained of bias, mostly against
President Trump, including a 7.30 interview of the White House Press Secretary
- Falun-Gong (83); the complaints were of bias, inaccuracy and unfairness towards Falun Gong in Foreign Correspondent and Background Briefing; no breach of editorial standards was found
- Launch of HMAS Supply (77): the complaints related to misleading presentation of video footage, that was corrected and a statement made by ABC News prior to complaints being received.
- Budget 2020 News Special and 7.30 interviews (55): the complaints were of anti-Coalition bias in post-Budget interviews of the Prime Minister and Treasurer; no breach of editorial standards was found
- Four Corners (45): the complaints alleged anti-government bias in the episode
‘Inside the Canberra Bubble’; no breach of editorial standards was found - Insiders (32): the complaints alleged that a program tweet linked to a paywalled
article that was biased against the Victorian Premier.
ACMA finalised three investigations in the same period relating to ABC News. It found no breach of editorial standards in a Four Corners program in June 2019 (‘Extinction Nation’), nor in a Q + A program in November 2019 (‘Broadside’). It found a breach of the impartiality standard in a Four Corners program in July 2019 (‘Cash Splash’) about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.
ABC complaint investigations often attract significant public attention. Following are three recent examples:
ACA did not uphold a complaint about an episode of the three-part television program,
‘Exposed: The Ghost Train Fire’, broadcast in March 2021. A subsequent independent review of the program conducted by Tiffen and Masters praised the program for mounting a compelling case for a new investigation of the fire, but criticised the program for making references to high-level political corruption that were vague, anonymous and unhelpful.
7
ACA found an editorial standards breach had occurred in the second episode of ‘Ms Represented’ in July 2021. The program had not provided a person against whom an allegation was made an opportunity to respond (former Senator Cory Bernardi). The ABC publicly apologised to Mr Bernardi, and the program was re-edited to include his denial of the allegation.
Complaints were made about an ABC News Online report in May 2021 dealing with conflict in the Gaza region. In response to the complaints, amendments were made to some of the phraseology in the report and to add additional explanation on one point. A later note was added to acknowledge those changes.
Previous reviews of ABC complaints handling
Two previous reviews of the ABC complaints system have been conducted.
2009 – Review of the ABC’s Self-Regulation Framework: This review was conducted by the first ABC Director of Editorial Policies. It was based on staff consultations around Australia, and publication of an Issues Paper that prompted 28 public submissions. A report with the same title was published.
As the title of the review suggests, the focus was upon strengthening the ABC self-regulation framework. The underlying premise was that self-regulation was essential to media independence, yet effective self-regulation was also necessary for institutional legitimacy and public trust. Complaints’ handling was one element of the review, along with other dimensions such as standards-setting, audience response, staff training and continuous improvement.
The report of the review largely endorsed the self-regulation framework and made recommendations for enhanced performance. The recommendations on complaints handling were designed to streamline the complaints process, ensure quicker resolution of complaints, encourage a more accepting and less defensive ABC approach to complaints, allow more flexibility in devolving complaints resolution to program areas, and clarify complaint remedies and breach penalties.
The findings of the review are largely reflected in the current complaints handling procedures and approaches.
2018 – Australian National Audit Office Audit of ABC Complaints Management: The ANAO completed a performance audit of ABC complaints management in 2018. The audit looked at whether the ABC had effective processes and procedures in place to manage complaints, and if the ABC analysed, reported and learned from complaint outcomes. The audit was primarily a desk audit, involving some consultation with ABC staff. The ANAO relied on two documents noted below as benchmarking tools – the Australian Standard and an Ombudsman better practice guide.
The audit found that the ABC effectively managed editorial complaints that were handled by ACA. Specific findings included:
the ABC complaints process was accessible to the public through multiple channels that are easy to navigate
complaints were acknowledged, investigation updates were provided and the majority of complaints were finalised within the target timelines
processes were in place to record and allocate cases for investigation and to monitor complaint investigations
the responses to complainants were clear and addressed relevant issues
complaint activity was analysed, and information and reports were provided to the ABC Board and to staff and content areas.
8
The only issue on which the ANAO made a recommendation for change was for improved record-keeping to enable better central visibility over the handling of editorial and non-editorial complaints that are devolved to program/content areas following the 2009 Self-Regulation review. Without that visibility the ABC could not be assured that there was effective compliance with complaints handling policy and procedures.
The ABC response (which is published in the ANAO report) acknowledged the ANAO recommendation, but felt that if implemented fully it would impose an added resource burden on the ABC that was not consistent with the proportionality approach adopted in ABC complaints management.
Complaints handling principles and models
A complaints system comprises many parts, including a model or structure, operating procedures, and operational practices. The internal and external complaints systems that are adopted within government and industry, including in media regulation, are diverse and adaptable. The following examples briefly illustrate the range of choice.
Australian Standard: Standards Australia, the peak non-government body that develops standards used in government and business, has developed the Guidelines for complaints handling in organisations (AS/NZ 10002:2014). The guidelines are widely followed in Australia, including in the complaint handling guides published by Ombudsman offices – for example, Commonwealth Ombudsman, Better Practice Complaint Handling Guide.
CDR Benchmarks: The Australian Government and industry ombudsman schemes have jointly developed the national Benchmarks for Industry-Based Customer Dispute Resolution.
The Benchmarks are used by schemes and corporations to guide their complaint handling and dispute resolution work. They equally provide the focus for office performance reviews that are periodically conducted by independent reviewers (as required by scheme rules).
There are six benchmarks – accessibility, independence, fairness, accountability, efficiency and effectiveness. The practical requirements of each benchmark are spelt out in a supplementary guide, Key Practices for Industry-Based Customer Dispute Resolution.
SBS Ombudsman: SBS established an office of SBS Ombudsman in 2005 (initially titled the Audience Affairs Manager). The Ombudsman investigates complaints alleging a breach of the SBS Code of Practice. The Code sets out the editorial principles applying to SBS television, radio, digital media services and social media platforms.
The current Ombudsman is a former journalist and appointed by the SBS Board. The Ombudsman is located within SBS and reports to the Managing Director, but is independent of program/content areas and other pre- and post-publication editorial review processes. The Ombudsman provides a quarterly report to the Board and appears before the Board at least annually.
There is also a Complaints Committee, to which a content director can apply if the director does not accept an Ombudsman finding. The Committee’s decision is determinative. It comprises the Managing Director and content directors, and an external member if invited. A complainant who is dissatisfied with an SBS finding on a television or radio broadcast can complain to ACMA under the Broadcasting Services Act.
The SBS Ombudsman received 129 Code complaints in 2019-20. Matters are rarely referred to the Complaints Committee. The Ombudsman’s work is covered in the SBS Annual Report, but individual complaint findings are not otherwise reported on the SBS website.
9
CBC Ombudsman: The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) is the Canadian public radio and television broadcaster (an ABC equivalent). The CBC established an Office of Ombudsman in the early 1990s.
The office is established under Terms of Reference adopted by the CBC Board. They describe the Ombudsman as being ‘completely independent of CBC program staff and management, reporting directly to the President of CBC and, through the President, to the Corporation’s Board of Directors’.
The Ombudsman is appointed by the President, following an open selection process and on the recommendation of a four-person selection committee that must include two external members. The term of appointment is five years, renewable for another five years. The Ombudsman cannot occupy any other position at CBC in the following two years. All Ombudsman have been experienced journalists with some CBC tenure.
The Ombudsman has a dual role. One is an appeal authority if a person is dissatisfied with the outcome of a complaint the person first made to the CBC about compliance with the CBC Journalistic Standards and Practices in news or public affairs (but not entertainment programming). While the review focus is upon individual appeals, the Ombudsman can also undertake systemic or trend analysis to identify complaint issues of public concern that should be brought to the attention of CBC journalists and managers. The Ombudsman’s findings are published on the CBC website, and an annual report is provided to the CBC President and Board.
The Ombudsman’s second role is to conduct periodic evaluation of all CBC programming against principles of Accuracy, Integrity and Fairness. The Ombudsman is assisted in this role by independent advice panels appointed by the Ombudsman.
BBC complaints framework: The Royal Charter that establishes the BBC as a body corporate requires it to establish a complaints framework based on principles of transparency, accessibility, effectiveness, timeliness, proportionate dispute resolution and remedies for non- compliance. A comprehensive ‘BBC Complaints Framework and Procedures’ sets out five procedures for handling the more than 1 million comments, appreciations or enquiries the BBC receives each year, including 250,000 complaints (up to 450,000 in the past year). The five procedures are for editorial complaints, general complaints, television licensing complaints, political and election complaints, and regulatory complaints.
The preliminary complaint analysis and acknowledgement is managed by BBC Audience Services, through an outsourced body, Capita. It provides a daily report on the 3,000 or so matters received each day. Matters that require further consideration are sent to a BBC manager or editorial team. A complainant who is dissatisfied with the response to an editorial complaint can ask that it be considered by the Executive Complaints Unit (ECU), which examines if there has been a breach of the BBC Editorial Guidelines. The ECU considers approximately 700 complaints per year on average.
The final appeal stage is externally to the broadcasting regulator, Ofcom. It applies the Ofcom Broadcasting Code (that is similar to the Editorial Guidelines). Ofcom can impose a fine of up to $250,000 for a repeated breach.
The ECU reports directly to the Director-General of the BBC. However, the ECU falls within the management control of the Director, Editorial Policy and Standards, who has formal power to overrule an ECU finding. The Director’s other roles include preparing editorial guidelines and providing editorial guidance to programmers.
Australian Press Council: The Press Council was established in 1976 by publishers and other media organisations to promote good standards of media practice and to advocate
10
freedom of expression through the print media. There are thirty member organisations, including all but one of the major Australian newspapers. Council funding is provided by the members.
The Council has 22 members that comprise the Chair, 9 nominees of media organisations, 9 public members with no media affiliation, and 3 journalistic members who are not employed by a media organisation.
The Council has a complaints function, to handle complaints that an item published in print or digital form by a member organisation has contravened the Council Standards of Practice that aim to promote excellence in journalism. Over 700 complaints are received annually. Most complaints are resolved by Council staff. Those which are not are referred for formal determination by an Adjudication Panel that comprises members of the Council and other Panel members with a community or media background.
A final adjudication of the Council must be published in the publication to which it relates in a prominent manner.
Organisation of News Ombudsmen and Standards Editors (ONO): The ONO is an international non-government organisation, formed in 1980, that aims to protect and enhance quality journalism. Membership includes news ombudsmen and editorial standards editors.
The ABC, represented by the ABC Editorial Director, has been an active ONO member.
The ONO advances its goals through publications, conferences and other events. An example of an ONO publication is The Modern News Ombudsman.
Key Issues in this Review
The review welcomes written submissions in relation to its Terms of Reference.
To assist you in preparing a submission, KeyReview Themes and Specific Issues are set out below. You may address all or some only of those Issues, or raise other matters that fall within the Terms of Reference.
Your submission can be framed generally without nominating a specific Term of Reference or Key Issue. However, please bear in mind that this review is looking only at ABC complaints handling practices. It is not looking more generally at ABC culture or professionalism.
Key Review Themes
1. How important is the ABC complaints procedure? What purposes do you see it serving?
What role does it play in ABC self-regulation?
2. Have you used the ABC complaints procedure, and if so, what was your experience?
3. Do you have a view on the preferred structure for an ABC complaints unit? Should the complaints unit be part of the ABC, or an external body – bearing in mind the existence of the ACMA?
4. If the ABC complaints unit is internal to the ABC, how should it be managed and staffed?
What should be the reporting lines to the Managing Director and Board of the ABC? What role should the ABC Board play in complaints oversight?
5. What functions should an ABC complaints unit have? Should its only role be to investigate individual complaints? Or should it have a broader role to monitor and report on editorial standards and practices? Should social media postings by ABC staff (on their personal accounts) fall within the editorial complaints process?
11
6. Do you have a view on how ABC complaint work should be reported publicly?
7. Do you have a view on whether there is consistent practice across the ABC in responding to complaints? Are any ABC program or content areas of particular concern to you?
8. What measures should be in place to ensure that complaint outcomes are known and acted on within the ABC?
9. Does the ABC have satisfactory Editorial Policies and a Code of Practice? Should these be revised in any way? Should a single set of Editorial Policies apply to all ABC programming, or should special policies apply to specific programming types?
10. Broadcasting is characterised by rapid digital change, innovation and distribution of content. Is the ABC complaints process adapting adequately to that change?
Specific Issues
11. There are many elements of good complaints handling. Following are practice and procedure elements on which we welcome your comments in relation to the ABC:
Accessibility of the ABC complaint process for members of the public
Ease of making a complaint to the ABC
Deciding whether a person has raised an editorial complaint issue that requires investigation
The editorial standards or criteria applied by the ABC in resolving complaints
Timeframes for resolving ABC complaints
The regularity of communication with complainants, particularly in regard to more complex investigations
Investigation powers available to the ABC complaints unit
Dispute resolution options – such as devolution of responsibility to program/content areas, and the choice between recommendations and binding determinations
Remedies that can be granted when a complaint is upheld, and the sanctions that can be imposed for breach of ABC editorial standards
The procedure for reviewing or appealing against a disputed complaint outcome
Reporting complaint outcomes, both internally and publicly
The capabilities and skills required in the ABC complaints unit
Selection and tenure of staff in the ABC complaints unit
Resourcing of the ABC complaints unit
The use made of complaint data within the ABC
Linking the complaints process and outcomes to continuous improvement in the ABC
External ACMA review of ABC complaints handling.
Have Your Say
This review welcomes written submissions on any of the Terms of Reference or Key Issues set out above.
Your submission can be sent by email to: [email protected] The consultation period for submissions closes on Friday 17 December 2021.
Submissions may be made public unless marked confidential or you request otherwise.
12
Please do not include personal information about other individuals in the body of your submission.
The findings of this review are expected to be released in April 2022 after the report has been received by the ABC Board.
TERMS OF REFERENCE
How well does the ABC manage external complaints and feedback about compliance with ABC editorial standards?
The independent panel is to consider this issue and prepare a report to the ABC Board, having regard to the following matters:
1. the adequacy of the ABC Editorial Policies and ABC Code of Practice for upholding the requirements of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 (Cth)
2. the suitability of the ABC complaint process for receiving and managing complaints relating to ABC editorial standards
3. measures taken by the ABC to inform the public about the ABC complaint process 4. whether complaints relating to ABC editorial standards are dealt with efficiently, fairly
and reasonably
5. whether appropriate actions are taken and remedies provided for breaches of ABC editorial standards
6. measures taken by the ABC to ensure the organisation and its staff are fully informed about complaints and complaint outcomes
7. measures taken by the ABC to ensure that the complaint process is tied to continuous improvement in ABC editorial standards, and feeds into standards-setting, training and day-to-day content-making
8. measures taken by the ABC to provide information and training to staff and independent service and content providers about ABC editorial standards
9. whether the capabilities and resourcing of teams responsible for complaint processes are fit for purpose
10. measures taken by the ABC to ensure public transparency about complaints and complaint outcomes
11. measures taken by the ABC for receiving and managing audience responses (other than editorial complaints) that have a bearing on the standards.
