Investigation Report No. 3331

Summary

File no. ACMA2015/182

Broadcaster Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Station ABC24

Type of service National broadcasting television service

Name of program ‘Fact Check’ segment, ABC News 24

Date of broadcast 28 January 2015

Relevant legislation Standard 4.1 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (revised in 2014).

Date finalised 30 June 2015

Decision No breach of standard 4.1 [due impartiality] Error: Reference source not found

Background In March 2015, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) commenced an investigation into a ‘Fact Check’ segment, broadcast on ABC24 by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (the ABC) on 28 January 2015.

The complainant alleged that the ‘Fact Check’ segment was biased as it focused on one statement by the then Premier of Queensland, Campbell Newman, while ‘leaving a very large number of spurious claims by other parties to go unchecked’. The complainant also alleged that the ABC had been biased, over time, in its selection of which ‘fact’ to check.

An additional aspect of the complaint was the allegation that the biased selection of which ‘fact’ to check amounted to a ‘campaign’ by the staff of ‘Fact Check’ during the Queensland state election in early 2015. The ABC’s coverage of elections is governed by its own Act, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983, and is therefore not within the ACMA’s jurisdiction to investigate.

The complainant also expressed concerns about the ABC’s handling of his complaint and online content, however these matters are not within the ACMA’s jurisdiction to investigate.

The segment has been assessed in accordance with standard 4.1 [due impartiality] of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (revised in 2014) (the Code).

The program According to the ABC website: ABC Fact Check determines the accuracy of claims by politicians, public figures, advocacy groups and institutions engaged in the public debate. We aim to be available to all audiences by operating across multiple platforms, including television, radio and online. All verdicts fall into three colour-based categories: In The Red, In The Green or In Between - red being a negative ruling, and green being a positive. Our focus will be on statements likely to influence the public debate, rather than minor errors or gotcha moments involving trivial gaffes.1

In addition to the colour-based categories, the ‘Fact Check’ segments also provide an accompanying spoken word summary of the verdict. The ‘Fact Check’ segment broadcast on 28 January 2015 assessed a claim from the then Premier of Queensland that: Crime has gone down very, very significantly because of a stance by a government that was determined to make the community safer.

The presenter stated that the then Premier had used ‘police reported crime data’ comparing the period from July 2013 to November 2013 with July 2014 to November 2014 in order to make the claim.

The presenter stated, ‘experts say that the best way to assess the crime rate is to look at the long term trend’ and that the decline in crime had been ‘fairly consistent for well over a decade’.

1 http://www.abc.net.au/news/factcheck/about/, accessed on 27/04/2015. 2 The presenter also indicated that it was too soon to be able to credit the decline in crime to the Liberal National Party’s policies in terms of cause and effect.

The assessment within the ‘Fact Check’ segment was that Mr Newman’s claims were ‘exaggerated’ (with a colour-based verdict of red-orange).

A transcript of the segment is at Attachment A.

Submissions The complainant’s submissions are at Attachment B and the ABC’s submissions are at Attachment C.

Assessment This investigation is based on submissions from the complainant and the ABC, as well as a copy of the broadcast provided to the ACMA by the ABC. Other sources used have been identified where relevant.

In assessing content against the Code, the ACMA considers the meaning conveyed by the relevant material. This is assessed according to the understanding of an ‘ordinary reasonable’ listener or viewer.

Australian courts have considered an ‘ordinary reasonable’ listener or viewer to be: A person of fair average intelligence, who is neither perverse, nor morbid or suspicious of mind, nor avid for scandal. That person does not live in an ivory tower, but can and does read between the lines in the light of that person’s general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs.2

The ACMA considers the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone, visuals, and any inferences that may be drawn. In the case of factual material which is presented, the ACMA will also consider relevant omissions (if any).

Once the ACMA has applied this test to ascertain the meaning of the material that was broadcast, it then assesses compliance with the Code.

Relevant provision The ACMA has investigated the broadcast material against the following standard of the Code. 4.1 Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.

The Code requires that standards are interpreted and applied in accordance with relevant Principles. In the case of impartiality and diversity of perspectives, the relevant Principles include:

Judgements about whether impartiality was achieved in any given circumstances can vary among individuals according to their personal and subjective view of any given matter of contention. Acknowledging this fact of life does not change the ABC’s obligation to apply its impartiality standard as objectively as possible. In doing so, the ABC is guided by these hallmarks of impartiality:

 a balance that follows the weight of evidence;

 fair treatment;

 open-mindedness; and

2 Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 at pp 164–167.

ACMA Investigation Report—‘Fact Check’ segment, broadcast by the ABC on 28 January 2015 3 of 13 Error: Reference source not found

 opportunities over time for principal relevant perspectives on matters of contention to be expressed. [...] Impartiality does not require that every perspective receives equal time, nor that every facet of every argument is presented. Assessing the impartiality due in given circumstances requires consideration in context of all relevant factors including:

 the type, subject and nature of the content;

 the circumstances in which the content is made and presented;

 the likely audience expectations of the content;

 the degree to which the matter to which the content relates is contentious;

 the range of principal relevant perspectives on the matter of contention; and

 the timeframe within which it would be appropriate for the ABC to provide opportunities for the principal relevant perspectives to be expressed, having regard to the public importance of the matter of contention and the extent to which it is the subject of current debate.

Finding The ABC did not breach standard 4.1 of the Code.

Reasons The relevant provisions require the ABC to ‘gather and present news and information with due impartiality’. Inclusion of the word ‘due’ indicates an element of flexibility depending on the particular context. Whether a breach of the Code has occurred will depend on the themes in the program, any editorial comment, the overall presentation of the segment and the circumstances in which the program was prepared and broadcast. A program that presents a perspective that is opposed by a particular person or group is not inherently partial. Impartiality does not require that every perspective receives equal time, or that every facet of every issue is presented. Achieving impartiality requires a broadcaster to present content in a way which avoids conveying a prejudgment, or giving effect to the affections or enmities of the presenter or reporter, who play a key role in setting the tone of the program, through their style and choice of language. Relevant to this investigation is that the ‘Fact Check’ segment takes a particular significant statement or claim made in public discourse and examines its veracity in light of relevant background material to reach a ‘verdict’. It is noted that the segment in question was approximately one-and-a-half minutes in duration. In this brief and tightly framed context, the ABC has, under its own Code, latitude to focus on a particular fact, such as the relevant statement made by the then Queensland Premier. Relevantly, the ABC has submitted that: ABC Fact Check notes that it is not in a position to check every claim and reserves the right to decide which claims to check. The selection process for selecting a claim takes into account the number of requests received by ABC Fact Check to check a particular claim, a judgement as to the claim's relevance to the public debate and whether it is checkable.

4 As the ACMA has indicated in the past, the ABC is entitled to explore particular matters, such as an assertion that forms the focus of a ‘Fact Check’ segment.3

In determining whether the segment was compliant with the ABC's obligations under the Code, the ACMA has assessed the material against the ABC's hallmarks of impartiality, as set out below. A balance that follows the weight of evidence The complainant alleged that the ‘Fact Check’ segment assessed the then Queensland Premier’s claim as ‘exaggerated’, without providing adequate evidence, submitting that:

In [the ABC’s] response they claim that Mr Newman exaggerated the data, when they offer no proof of that in the article. Nowhere in the original article does it state nor prove that he exaggerated the statistics he used.

The ABC has indicated that: On its assessment of the weight of evidence, Fact Check concluded that claims that crime in Queensland had declined as a result of new legislation were exaggerated. The evidence which led to this conclusion was presented within the Fact Check item.

The ACMA notes that the focus of the segment directly related to interpretation of statistics that were provided pictorially in graph form as well as discussed by the presenter. The segment does not specifically indicate that the data or statistics were exaggerated, rather, it asserts that the basis for the ‘exaggerated’ finding in the segment relied on an assessment of the claim against longer term trends and the potential for relatively recent legislation to have had a causal impact on these trends. Relevantly, the presenter indicated within the broadcast that: Between 2001 and last year, Queensland’s crime rate dropped by 22.5 percent. The trend shows a steady fall in most crimes starting well before the Liberal National Party took office in March 2013. The decline has been fairly consistent for well over a decade. Criminologists say it is still too soon to know whether the ‘criminal gangs’ legislation has had any impact. So this is a continuing trend, hardly a ‘very, very significant decline’, and cause and effect has not been proven. Mr Newman’s claim is exaggerated.

In the context of a brief segment that focusses on a particular statement in light of surrounding trends and expert opinion, the analysis of Mr Newman’s statement against longer term trends by the ‘Fact Check’ segment demonstrated a balance that followed the weight of evidence. Fair treatment The complainant alleged that the findings reached by the ABC in relation to ‘Fact Check’ are biased, stating that: […] any time there is a state or federal election in the coming weeks they will only report on the Labor party being right and the Liberal party being wrong, or in the case of my complaint changing the parameters of the judgement to make the Liberal party look bad. The complainant uses a particular circumstance to illustrate the point, specifically a comparison between the segment complained about and another segment involving a statement by the Federal Opposition Leader that the coalition had ‘dropped the ball’ in relation to statistics concerning unemployment trends. In the latter example, ‘Fact Check’ provided a verbal assessment of ‘more to the story’. Relevantly, the ABC has submitted that:

3 Please see ACMA Investigations 3162 and 3266

These are very different claims in both severity and causal linkage. There is a fundamental difference between a Premier claiming his legislation led to a fall in the crime rate and an opposition leader claiming the government is not doing enough to combat unemployment. While the statistics in both cases partly involved looking at overall trends, that is where the similarity began and ended.

The ACMA considers that the material was framed in neutral terms, and it was made clear by the presenter that the purpose of the segment was to specifically assess a particular claim. As the ABC has submitted, ‘audiences understand that Fact Check does not aim to present competing perspectives about issues that are fundamentally matters of opinion’ [emphasis added]. Further to the complainant’s concerns, the ACMA notes that the use of the term ‘exaggerated’, employed in this context as the verbal finding relevant to the segment’s analysis of this particular claim, was consistent with the Macquarie Dictionary meaning of the term: adjective 1. unduly magnified4

Furthermore, the use within the segment of the term ‘exaggerated’ was broadly consistent with the use, over time, of other varied and inexact terms. For example, previous segments have reached the following findings: ‘Overreach’, ‘More to the story’, ‘Selective’, ‘Overstated’, ‘Yes, but more to it’, ‘Misleading’, ‘Spin’, ‘Rubbery figures’, and ‘Incorrect’5. The ACMA does not consider that any viewpoints or individuals were treated unfairly within the program. In this case, it would have been clear to the audience that ‘Fact Check’ has a narrow focus in which a matter, that may be part of wider debate or issue, is examined in relation to a particular claim to reach a finding. Open mindedness The complainant alleged that the ABC was biased in its selection of material for examination within ‘Fact Check’: […] Fact Check has picked out one statement by Campbell Newman for examination, while leaving a very large number of spurious claims by the other parties to go unchecked. […] I would expect as an "impartial" network that claims by both sides would be examined but this has not been the case. This I have taken to be a bias, as it seems only the statements by one person are being examined.

With regards to the method of claim or fact selection, the ABC submitted: Fact Check makes its editorial judgements about which facts to check in the same way every ABC News program unit makes its story choices: news value, public interest, reflecting the national agenda and matters of public debate.

The ABC further submitted that:

Fact Check advises that its team always takes the story and conclusion where the facts lead, without fear or favour. […] The outcomes cannot be predicted on a partisan basis and follow where the unit’s research leads.

In this case, the ACMA considers the segment provided sufficient material for viewers to make up their own minds on the finding, and to understand that this is one aspect of a broader debate likely to include other perspectives. Both the newsreader, in framing the segment, and the presenter, in examining the claim, used tones of voice and language that were neutral and did not convey apparent pre-judgments of the ‘verdict’.

4 Macquarie Dictionary, sixth online edition, accessed 22/05/2015. 5 http://www.abc.net.au/news/factcheck/recent/, accessed on 27/04/2015. 6 The ACMA accepts that the statement related to a matter of public interest and that the analysis conducted by ‘Fact Check’ did not, in this case, display an apparent lack of open- mindedness. Opportunities over time for principal relevant perspectives on matters of contention to be expressed The complainant alleged that the analysis of the specific claim, and the verdict that it was ‘exaggerated’, is evidence that the ABC had selectively chosen statements made by a particular political party, in order to produce a biased overall perspective. The complainant also raises concerns in relation to findings across the ‘history’ of the segment in relation to biased findings that similarly favour a particular political party. The ABC has submitted: An assessment of the opportunity for principal relevant viewpoints to be presented on matters of contention must take into account the breadth of the ABC’s coverage of various issues. Relevantly, the claims made by those vying for election in Queensland were covered in depth across ABC television, radio and online.

Relevant to this obligation, in this case, the segment itself would have been understood by an ordinary reasonable viewer as being a brief analysis of a specific claim or statement that, over time, contributes to a broader range of perspectives about matters of contention. The ABC states that ‘Fact Check’ has specific procedures to monitor the segments over time, to ensure a diversity of perspectives: In terms of Fact Check itself, the team makes deliberate efforts to check claims made by a range of different sources across a diversity of subjects. Records are kept of the facts that have been checked, allowing the team to review the partisan mix and balance between opposing interests on contentious subject[s].

In direct relevance to the concerns raised by the complainant, the ABC has submitted that: In the political sphere, the unit has fact checked a large number of claims from both sides of politics. Some have been wholly or partially discredited; others have been found to be accurate. It would be simplistic to expect that an equal number of fact checks on either side of a political contest would deliver equally positive or negative outcomes.

Under the Code, ABC programs are not obliged to ensure that every facet of every argument is presented, or to give equal time to all viewpoints. Thus, within a short duration segment with a clearly articulated focus that would be readily understood by viewers, the ABC has latitude to concentrate on a particular claim.

It is noted that the complainant has raised issues in relation to the impartiality of ‘Fact Check’ segments over time. The ABC’s obligation under the Code is to allow opportunities over time for relevant perspectives on matters of contention to be expressed. This obligation is not applicable within the ‘Fact Check’ segment, but rather attaches to such opportunities across the ABC’s broadcasting platforms. The ABC has submitted examples (at Attachment C) of its coverage, over time, of relevant issues relating to the Queensland State Election. On this basis, the ACMA is satisfied that the ABC has provided opportunities over time for relevant principal perspectives to be expressed on law and order issues relevant to the Queensland State Election. Accordingly, the ABC did not breach standard 4.1 of the Code.

Attachment A

Transcript of ‘Fact Check’ broadcast on ABC24 on 18 January 20156

NEWSREADER: Law and order is a major plank of the Queensland Premier, Campbell Newman’s re-election strategy, and the LNP says its policies are the reason that the crime rate is dropping. John Barron from ABC Fact Check, investigates.

JOHN BARRON: Queensland Premier Campbell Newman says his government’s crackdown on criminal bikie gangs has lowered the crime rate.

[FOOTAGE] MR NEWMAN: Crime has gone down very, very significantly…because of a stance by a government that was determined to make the community safer.

JOHN BARRON: Mr Newman is using police reported crime data and he is comparing July to November 2014 to the same period the year before, and it does show some reductions in certain offences but not in others. Experts say that the best way to assess the crime rate is to look at the long term trend, and that shows, Queensland’s falling crime rate, is nothing new. Between 2001 and last year, Queensland’s crime rate dropped by 22.5 percent. The trend shows a steady fall in most crimes starting well before the Liberal National Party took office in March 2013. The decline has been fairly consistent for well over a decade. Criminologists say it is still too soon to know whether the ‘criminal gangs’ legislation has had any impact. So this is a continuing trend, hardly a ‘very, very significant decline’, and cause and effect has not been proven. Mr Newman’s claim is exaggerated.

6 ACMA transcript produced 30/03/2015. 8 Attachment B Complainant’s submissions

On 29 January 2015, the Complainant submitted to the ABC:

This complaint is twofold. First, the fact that "Fact Check has picked out one statement by Campbell Newman for examination, while leaving a very large number of spurious claims by the other parties to go unchecked. Some examples of very dodgy claims without evidence include, "Electricity will cost more for 99 years if the LNP win", and "Campbell Newman has a secret plot to privatise the bus network". These claims among many more are very dodgy and have no evidence presented to back them up. I would expect as an "impartial" network that claims by both sides would be examined but this has not been the case. This I have taken to be a bias, as it seems only the statements by one person are being examined.

The second part of the complaint is the way it has been presented on the website. When compared these two articles http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-10/bill-shorten- unemployment-fact-check/5951442 and http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-27/fact-check-qld-crime-rates-newman/6009168 are the same result with the same evidence to back it up. This evidence mainly being graphs and statistics that state a long term trend. Why then does Bill Shorten get a "more to the story" and Campbell Newman gets "exaggerating"? To further muddy "Fact Check"'s credibility for impartiality, why does Shorten get green next to him on the bar, but Newman gets red?

This difference in presentation, while small, can carry weight with people browsing and not reading the whole thing. In the end of the Newman article it even says "the individual statistics cited by the Premier don't tell the full story", so why is it different when Shorten does the same thing.

The only conclusion I have is a bias in this case by the staff of "Fact Check" otherwise the two stories (which are exactly the same) would have the same outcome, would they not. I realise with this type of report there is a lot of grey, but this is one of the few times that there are such similar claims to work with. This example coupled with the lack of focus on other parties wild claims in the QLD state election, and just days out from the election looks very much like campaigning by this program. I would not have thought your programs were allowed to so blatantly campaign.

On 2 March 2015, the Complainant submitted to the ABC:

[…] The issue has since been compounded by the program with them doing another report the day after I made my initial complaint by finding one thing to prove the Labor party "correct" ignoring all the dubious claims made by them during the campaign. As I stated in my complaint, this seemed a lot like campaigning by the staff of "Fact Check", as they appeared to only wish to find fault with one side of politics. Just for the record I do NOT support any political party, when I vote I usually vote for the independent that reflects my beliefs best, or vote informally. What I do care about is impartiality of the ABC, and in this case it seems to have been ignored. On 25 March 2015, the Complainant submitted to the ACMA:

In [the ABC’s] response they claim that Mr Newman exaggerated the data, when they offer no proof of that in the article. Nowhere in the original article does it state nor prove that he exaggerated the statistics he used. Yet in their response to my complaint they use that as the

sole basis for ignoring my complaint and claiming that nothing was wrong with their behaviour. That was the only difference between the two they could provide and it is an excuse that does not exist. Clearly they just do not wish to admit such a mistake on their part and just desperately attempted to explain it away. […]

The other part of my complaint was the selective picking of what to check. Yet all it takes to prove the impartiality is a look at their site. Since December 2014, there is not one instance of them finding fault with the Labor party, despite many dubious claims by them. For example the Labor party consistently states that privatising electricity will drive prices up, when the ACCC reports that the opposite is true. http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/02/19/power-sell-offs-will-lower-prices-accc.

Yet their "Fact Check" program does not seem willing to report on such matters. What I can see by going through the history of that program is that any time there is a state or federal election in the coming weeks they will only report on the Labor party being right and the Liberal party being wrong, or in the case of my complaint changing the parameters of the judgement to make the Liberal party look bad. They do seem willing to disprove the Labor party's claims, provided there is not an election any time soon.

Their statement that they reserve the right to choose what they report is very convenient, especially if (hypothetically) it was run by people who wanted to run a campaign, as then they would just be able to say they did not feel that making the party they campaign for was not relevant.

There are multiple examples of differing conclusions to the same kind of claims on their website, each of them coming more favourably for the Labor party than the Liberal party.

10 Attachment C Broadcaster’s submissions

On 25 March 2015, the ABC submitted to the complainant:

[…] As your correspondence raised concerns of bias, your email was referred to Audience and Consumer Affairs for consideration and response. The unit is separate and independent from ABC program areas and is responsible for investigating complaints alleging a broadcast or publication was in contravention of the ABC's editorial standards. In light of your concerns, we have reviewed the articles and assessed them against the ABC’s editorial requirements for impartiality, as outlined in section 4.1 of the ABC’s Editorial Policies. In the interests of procedural fairness, we have also sought and considered material from ABC Fact Check. In relation to the first point: ABC Fact Check notes that it is not in a position to check every claim and reserves the right to decide which claims to check. The selection process for selecting a claim takes into account the number of requests received by ABC Fact Check to check a particular claim, a judgement as to the claim's relevance to the public debate and whether it is checkable. On the second point, Fact Check states that the Bill Shorten fact check involves a claim that the Abbott Government has "dropped the ball" on unemployment, while Mr Newman claims that crime had gone down ''very significantly" since his government passed new crime laws. These are very different claims in both severity and causal linkage. There is a fundamental difference between a Premier claiming his legislation led to a fall in the crime rate and an opposition leader claiming the government is not doing enough to combat unemployment. While the statistics in both cases partly involved looking at overall trends, that is where the similarity began and ended. On review, Audience and Consumer Affairs does not agree that the claims being checked or the results of the checks are essentially the same. In the case of Mr Shorten, the factual basis of his assertion stands ups; rather it his interpretation of the data that is selective in that he fails to acknowledge that the trend in rising unemployment began before the Coalition took office. In the case of Mr Newman, he goes further, not only failing to acknowledge that the trend in falling crime began under Labor, but misrepresenting the current data and exaggerating the decline under his government. The slight difference in presentation, therefore is justifiable. In both cases, Audience and Consumer Affairs is satisfied that Fact Check has chosen editorially significant subject matter and based its analysis on an accurate and fair presentation of the facts. Accordingly, while noting your concerns, we are satisfied the articles were in keeping with the ABC’s editorial standards for impartiality.

On 14 May 2015, the ABC submitted to the ACMA: 1) Fact Check makes its editorial judgements about which facts to check in the same way every ABC News program unit makes its story choices: news value, public interest, reflecting the national agenda and matters of public debate. Fact Check journalists will ask themselves questions such as: - Is this claim in dispute? - Does an analysis of the factual basis for a claim matter in this instance? - Does factual analysis add to the quality of public debate? - Do audiences want more clarity on this subject? Many ABC programs ask for public submissions on ideas or story tips. While these are given serious consideration, the decision about which items to run always remains a matter for editorial judgement. In the case of Fact Check, audience submissions very often cover claims of which the team is already aware.

2) The style of journalism practised by Fact Check is analytical and fact-driven and necessarily employs a declarative style. The audience expectation is that, at the end of a piece, they will hear the team’s assessment – or verdict – of whether a factual claim stands up to scrutiny. Audiences understand that Fact Check does not aim to present competing perspectives about issues that are fundamentally matters of opinion. Rather, it robustly examines the facts which indicate whether a public statement is true, untrue or somewhere in between. In this way, Fact Check complements and adds depth to the ABC’s extensive journalistic offerings.

3) An assessment of the opportunity for principal relevant viewpoints to be presented on matters of contention must take into account the breadth of the ABC’s coverage of various issues. Relevantly, the claims made by those vying for election in Queensland were covered in depth across ABC television, radio and online. Premier Newman’s claim that ‘crime has gone down very significantly … because of a stance by a Government that was determined to make the community safer’ was explicitly included in the Fact Check that is the subject of Mr Sheridan’s complaint. On its assessment of the weight of evidence, Fact Check concluded that claims that crime in Queensland had declined as a result of new legislation were exaggerated. The evidence which led to this conclusion was presented within the Fact Check item. In terms of Fact Check itself, the team makes deliberate efforts to check claims made by a range of different sources across a diversity of subjects. Records are kept of the facts that have been checked, allowing the team to review the partisan mix and balance between opposing interests on contentious subject. Fact Check advises that its team always takes the story and conclusion where the facts lead, without fear or favour.

In the political sphere, the unit has fact checked a large number of claims from both sides of politics. Some have been wholly or partially discredited; others have been found to be accurate. It would be simplistic to expect that an equal number of fact checks on either side of a political contest would deliver equally positive or negative outcomes. The outcomes cannot be predicted on a partisan basis and follow where the unit’s research leads.

On 30 June 2015, the ABC made further submissions to the ACMA:

12 [The links below] demonstrate that a range of principal relevant viewpoints has been presented in relation to law and order issues and the Queensland election:

- Queensland election: where the parties stand on key issues - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-27/queensland-election-party-policies-on-key- issues-interactive/6043016 - Queensland election: Campbell Newman, Annastacia Palaszczuk hit regional hustings - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-07/queensland-election-newman- palaszczuk-hits-the-regional-hustings/6005358 - Queensland election 2015: Have crime rates dropped in the state under Campbell Newman’s government? - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-09/queensland- election-2015-crime-rates-dropped-campbell-newman/6009282 - Queensland election 2015: Labor vows to set up organised crime inquiry and review anti-bikie laws - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-29/queensland-election-labor- to-set-up-organised-crime-inquiry/6054864 - Queensland election 2015: VLAD laws and their impact on Mackay - http://www.abc.net.au/local/photos/2015/01/30/4171344.htm - Queensland election 2015: LNP’s new ad targets Labor over links between unions, bikie gangs - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-25/queensland-election-2015- newman-claim-bikies-financing-labor/6044860 - Queensland election: Campbell Newman vows tougher action against bikies if re- elected - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-07/queensland-election3a-campbell- newman-vows-tougher-action-agai/6004562 - Queensland election 2015: Police union president says Campbell Newman lied on funding for Safe Night Out strategy - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-21/police- union-president-says-newman-lied-safe-night-out-funding/6030782 - 10 days until the election – law and order - http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2015/01/10-days-until-the-election-law-and- order.html - Queensland election 2015: Voting booths close soon, with all eyes on Ashgrove - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-31/queensland-election-2015-polls-open-across- state/6058494

ACMA Investigation Report—‘Fact Check’ segment, broadcast by the ABC on 28 January 2015 13 of 13