3RN - ACMA Investigation Report 2907

Investigation Report No. 2907

File No. ACMA2012/1381

Licensee Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Station 3RN Victoria

Type of service National broadcasting

Name of program AM

Date/s of broadcast 9 August 2012

Relevant Code Standards 2.1 and 2.2 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 standards Date Finalised 16 April 2013

Decision No breach of clause 2.1 (ensure material facts are accurate) No breach of clause 2.2 (not materially mislead)

ACMA Investigation Report – AM broadcast by ABC on 9 August 2012 The complaint The Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) received a complaint regarding a segment of the AM program broadcast by the ABC on 9 August 2012. The complainant alleged that the segment contained an inaccurate and misleading statement. The ACMA has investigated the ABC’s compliance with standards 2.1 and 2.2 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (the Code).

The program AM is described on the ABC’s website as:

AM is Australia's most informative morning current affairs program. AM sets the agenda for the nation's daily news and current affairs coverage.1 On 9 August 2012, the presenter interviewed the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Tony Abbott, regarding various subjects including electricity prices. The interview was introduced as follows:

Presenter: The Federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has argued the Prime Minister's attack on the states this week to rein in the cost of electricity assets was worthy of a gold medal in hypocrisy. He argues that the national energy regulator signed off on the increased prices for poles and wires and that ultimately was Julia Gillard's fault. Mr Abbott has discussed that issue - among others - with our chief political correspondent [reporter].

A transcript of the relevant part of the interview is at Appendix A.

Assessment This investigation is based on submissions from the complainant and the ABC, correspondence between the complainant and the ABC, and a copy of the broadcast provided to the ACMA by the ABC. Other sources have been identified where relevant. In assessing content for compliance with the Code the ACMA considers the meaning conveyed by the relevant material. This is assessed according to the understanding of an ‘ordinary reasonable viewer/listener’. Australian courts have considered an ‘ordinary, reasonable viewer/listener’ 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 examines what the ‘ordinary, reasonable viewer/listener’ would have understood the relevant material to have conveyed, in the context of the relevant program segment. It considers the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone and inferences that may be drawn, and in the case of factual material, relevant omissions (if any). Once this test has been applied to ascertain the meaning of the broadcast material, it is for the ACMA to determine whether there has been a breach of the Code.

1 www.abc.net.au/am/default.htm 2 Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (1998) NSWLR 158 at 164-167

ACMA Investigation Report – AM broadcast by ABC on 9 August 2012 2 Issue - Accuracy

Relevant Code standards

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.

The Code requires that the standards are interpreted and applied in accordance with the Principles applying in each Section. Relevant Principles in relation to accuracy include the following:

Types of fact-based content include news and analysis of current events, documentaries, factual dramas and lifestyle programs. The ABC requires that reasonable efforts must be made to ensure accuracy in all fact-based content. The ABC gauges those efforts by reference to:

 the type, subject and nature of the content;

 the likely audience expectations of the content;

 the likely impact of reliance by the audience on the accuracy of the content; and

 the circumstances in which the content was made and presented.

The ABC accuracy standard applies to assertions of fact, not to expressions of opinion. An opinion, being a value judgement or conclusion, cannot be found to be accurate or inaccurate in the way facts can. The accuracy standard requires that opinions be conveyed accurately, in the sense that quotes should be accurate and any editing should not distort the meaning of the opinion expressed.

The efforts reasonably required to ensure accuracy will depend on the circumstances. Sources with relevant expertise may be relied on more heavily than those without. Eyewitness testimony usually carries more weight than second-hand accounts. The passage of time or the inaccessibility of locations or sources can affect the standard of verification reasonably required.

The ABC should make reasonable efforts, appropriate in the context, to signal to audiences gradations in accuracy, for example by querying the interviewees, qualifying bald assertions, supplementing the partly right and correcting the plainly wrong.

The considerations which the ACMA generally applies in assessing whether particular broadcast material is factual in character are set out at Appendix B. In applying standard 2.1 of the Code the ACMA generally adopts the following approach:  Was the particular material (the subject of the complaint) factual in character?

 Did it convey a ‘material’ fact or facts in the context of the relevant segment?  If so, were those facts accurate?

 If a material fact was not accurate, (or its accuracy cannot be determined) did the ABC make reasonable efforts to ensure that the ‘material’ fact was accurate and presented in context?

ACMA Investigation Report – AM broadcast by ABC on 9 August 2012 3 In applying standard 2.2 of the Code, the ACMA usually adopts the following approach:  Was the particular material (the subject of the complaint) factual in character?

 Was that factual content presented in way that would materially (i.e. in a significant respect) mislead the audience?

Submissions The submissions of the complainant and broadcaster are at Appendices C and D respectively.

Finding The ABC did not breach standards 2.1 and 2.2 of the Code.

Reasons The complainant alleged that the following comment (in bold) made by Mr Abbott was inaccurate and misleading:

Reporter: But a large percentage increase of power bills over the last five years have been apparently due to this gold plating of electricity assets. You'd do nothing about it?

Tony Abbott: Well the last thing you would want would be to see power black-outs or power brown-outs. We want, certainly, security of supply here. But the point I make [reporter] is that we've never heard about this for five years. Now the Prime Minister, she's in a desperate jam over her carbon tax and the carbon tax's impact on prices, she's blaming everyone but herself for this problem. But the problem is now, the carbon tax is now, the carbon tax is responsible for 100% of the power price rise in Queensland, 80% of the power price rise in Western Sydney and 80% of the power price rise in Canberra and at least 50% of the power price rise in other parts of the country. So it’s the carbon tax which is specifically designed to put power prices up which is the problem that the Prime Minister is in denial about now.

The ordinary, reasonable viewer would have understood the statement as factual content as opposed to an expression of opinion. In this regard, the natural and ordinary meaning of the language used together with contextual indications from the rest of the broadcast, have been considered. The relevant statement was presented in a conclusive manner without any indication that it might be a statement of personal beliefs or opinions. The statement would have conveyed, as fact, that the carbon tax is responsible for 100% of the power price rise in Queensland, 80% of the power price rise in Western Sydney and 80% of the power price rise in Canberra and at least 50% of the power price rise in other parts of the country. The ACMA considers this was a material fact in the context of the segment. The complainant has submitted that the ABC failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy of the relevant statement and that the statement was materially misleading. Accordingly, the ACMA has assessed the ABC’s compliance with standards 2.1 and 2.2 of the Code.

ACMA Investigation Report – AM broadcast by ABC on 9 August 2012 4 Standard 2.1 The complainant submitted the following:

… I do not believe that the interviewer …made reasonable effort to ensure that Mr Abbott's explicit statement was accurate and presented in context…

With such an important, categorical, and purportedly factual statement, the interviewer should not have let the statement pass without question or debate. What were Mr Abbott's sources? What about the compensation payments for the carbon tax components of the electricity price rises? Did the price freeze in Queensland have anything to do with the distorted Queensland 100% figure? Wouldn't the Queensland Government have to recoup their foregone network/poles/distribution costs at some later date? Where did the specific Western Sydney figures come from given that there is a market mechanism for electricity in NSW as well as a regulated price? What did Mr. Abbott mean by "other parts of the country"? Did this include the rest of NSW, or Victoria, or SA etc?

The complainant provided the following documents in support of his complaint:  A factsheet from the Queensland Competition Authority indicating that the Queensland government froze electricity prices in 2011-12 ‘with the only increase coming from the introduction of carbon tax’;  A factsheet from the NSW Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) which is based on a Draft Determination to set electricity prices from 1 July 2012. The factsheet sets out the proposed price increases for the three regulated electricity retailers and states that the reason for the proposed increases are:

o the continuing rise in forecast network costs, which contributes to around half the average 16% price increase, and

o the introduction of the Federal Government’s carbon pricing mechanism, which contributes to the other half of the average price increase.  A link to the Federal Government’s website, Clean Energy Future3, which states that:

The carbon price cost is small in comparison to the total cost of the other elements that make up your electricity bill. Carbon pricing will change the relative prices of goods and lead to a small increase in overall prices. Carbon pricing is expected to add around 10 per cent to house hold electricity prices in 2012-13 and 9 per cent to household gas prices. The impact on other household prices is much less, mostly less than 0.5 per cent.

The Clean Energy Future site includes a table setting out a state-by-state breakdown of the carbon price increase on household electricity bills in 2012-13:

Regulated electricity price Overall percentage increase (including Carbon contribution increases from 1 July 2012 for wholesale, network, retail and carbon percentage points typical residential customers charges, rounded to one decimal place) New South Wales 18.1 per cent 8.9 per cent South Australia 18.0 per cent 4.6 per cent Queensland 13.1 per cent 11.0 per cent Tasmania 10.6 per cent 5.6 per cent Western Australia 12.6 per cent 9.1 per cent

3 www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/helping-households/your-electricity-bill/

ACMA Investigation Report – AM broadcast by ABC on 9 August 2012 5 Northern Territory 9.6 per cent 6.8 per cent Australian Capital Territory 17.7 per cent 14.2 per cent The prices in Victoria are not regulated and the Treasury modelled an Victoria increases vary between retailers and distribution average increase of 11 per network areas. cent. There appears to be no dispute that electricity prices (for consumers) have increased nationally. What is in dispute is the range of factors that contributed to this increase and the respective contribution of those factors in different areas of Australia. The table above indicates that the contributors to the price rise include ‘wholesale, network, retail and carbon charges’. The ACMA has considered the material provided by the complainant above. The IPART factsheet states that the carbon tax accounts for about half of the 16% price rise in electricity in NSW which roughly accords with the figure provided by the Federal government’s Clean Living Future website for NSW (8.9% of the 18.1% increase). The latter website also states that the carbon tax contribution to the increase in electricity prices in SA is 25.5%, QLD 84.6%, TAS 52.8%, WA 74.6%, NT 70.8% and ACT 80.2%. It is also noted that the Queensland Competition Authority states that the only electricity price increase in 2011-12 came from the introduction of carbon tax as there was an electricity price freeze in Queensland at that time. It is arguable whether the figures above support Mr Abbott’s statement:

the carbon tax is responsible for 100% of the power price rise in Queensland, 80% of the power price rise in Western Sydney and 80% of the power price rise in Canberra and at least 50% of the power price rise in other parts of the country.

The 84.6% carbon tax contribution in Queensland does not accord with Mr Abbott’s reference to 100%, unless the 100% figure refers to Queensland’s electricity price freeze in 2011-12. In addition, there is no evidence to support Mr Abbott’s reference to an 80% increase in Western Sydney, nor to the 50% increase in other parts of the country, which includes regional areas as well as the capital cities. The above discussion highlights that the issue of the extent to which the carbon tax affects the increase in electricity prices in Australia is a complex and contentious one and can vary depending on what factors are taken into account. In light of this complexity and in the absence of sufficient information to determine the exact contribution of the carbon tax to the price rise, the ACMA cannot make a determination on the accuracy of Mr Abbott’s statement. Were reasonable efforts made to ensure that material facts were accurate? The next question is whether the ABC made reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts were accurate. What is reasonable depends on the circumstances. The ACMA has had regard to the guiding Principles in the Code which explain that the ABC gauges ‘reasonable efforts’ by reference to:

 the type, subject and nature of the content;

 the likely audience expectations of the content;

 the likely impact of reliance by the audience on the accuracy of the content; and

 the circumstances in which the content was made and presented.

In this instance:

ACMA Investigation Report – AM broadcast by ABC on 9 August 2012 6  The factual statement was made by the Leader of Opposition in the context of an interview about the Opposition’s policy platform on a controversial issue of public debate on which there is a range of views.  The ABC accurately reported the statement and did not misrepresent the Leader of the Opposition’s position on the issue.  The statement was made by an interviewee, not by an ABC reporter.  The statement was made in the context of a discussion canvassing Mr Abbott’s views on what action he would take about state governments ‘gold plating’ their electricity assets.  Mr Abbott’s comments on the extent to which the carbon tax was responsible for the increase in electricity prices in various states were not in direct response to the focus of the interviewer’s questions. In these circumstances, the ACMA considers that ‘reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts are accurate’ did not oblige the reporter to challenge Mr Abbott about the accuracy of his statement, in preference to seeking to focus Mr Abbott’s attention on the issue which the reporter wished to pursue. Standard 2.2 The complainant submitted that:

I was certainly misled by Mr Abbott's statement and the more I have delved into the real facts on electricity pricing throughout Australia, the more it has become apparent that Mr Abbott's "facts" were distorted and simplified to an extent that should have made them unacceptable as factual information under the ABC's Code.

The ACMA notes that the reporter challenged Mr Abbott by pointing out on a number of occasions that the energy regulator4 and a politician in his own party believed that the price increase was due to the states’ ‘gold plating’ electricity infrastructure:

Your energy spokesman Ian Macfarlane said on Tuesday that the states had been price gouging. He said that this was an issue and said the Prime Minister was a latecomer. The energy regulator himself has said prices are too high but his hands are tied.

But specifically on the regulator and the fact that he also says his hands are tied.

But a large percentage increase of power bills over the last five years have been apparently due to this gold plating of electricity assets…

Well the regulator was set up under the Howard government with the states in 2006. It was a product of the Coalition government…

But by what you're saying here this morning, you're saying that this issue isn't a problem even though the regulator himself has pointed out that he's been in effect powerless to do anything about it even though he's known it's been a problem too for 14 months.

This challenge would have alerted viewers that there was some dispute about the issues. The ACMA is of the view that this challenge and the alternative view put to Mr Abbott means that

4 The energy regulator stated that he has no power to do anything about the increase in electricity prices and that network operators and state governments will continue to overinvest in infrastructure www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/regulator-agrees-power-prices-too-high-20120808-23uou.html

ACMA Investigation Report – AM broadcast by ABC on 9 August 2012 7 viewers would not have been materially misled by Mr Abbott’s statement. As a result, the ABC did not breach standard 2.2 of the Code. As the ACMA has found that the ABC did not breach standards 2.1 and 2.2, it is not necessary to consider the issue of corrections and clarifications under standard 3.1 of the Code.

ACMA Investigation Report – AM broadcast by ABC on 9 August 2012 8 Appendix A Transcript

Presenter: The Federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has argued the Prime Minister's attack on the states this week to rein in the cost of electricity assets was worthy of a gold medal in hypocrisy. He argues that the national energy regulator signed off on the increased prices for poles and wires and that ultimately was Julia Gillard's fault. Mr Abbott has discussed that issue - among others - with our chief political correspondent [reporter]. Reporter: Tony Abbott, thanks for talking to AM. Tony Abbott: Thanks [reporter]. Reporter: Do you believe the state governments have been gold plating their electricity infrastructure and raising revenue through power bills? Tony Abbott: If they have, why hasn't the Federal Government been telling us this for years? We've now had this current Government in power for five years and why is this the first time they've ever raised this so-called problem? Reporter: Your energy spokesman Ian Macfarlane said on Tuesday that the states had been price gouging. He said that this was an issue and said the Prime Minister was a latecomer. The energy regulator himself has said prices are too high but his hands are tied. What would you do about it? Tony Abbott: Well I'd abolish the carbon tax. That's what I'd do. Reporter: But specifically on the regulator and the fact that he also says his hands are tied. Tony Abbott: Yeah but if we're worried about power prices [reporter], what is impacting on power prices now that wasn't impacting before is the carbon tax. So if we're serious about getting power prices down we would be dropping the carbon tax. Reporter: But a large percentage increase of power bills over the last five years have been apparently due to this gold plating of electricity assets. You'd do nothing about it? Tony Abbott: Well the last thing you would want would be to see power black-outs or power brown-outs. We want, certainly, security of supply here. But the point I make [reporter] is that we've never heard about this for five years. Now the Prime Minister, she's in a desperate jam over her carbon tax and the carbon tax's impact on prices, she's blaming everyone but herself for this problem. But the problem is now, the carbon tax is now, the carbon tax is responsible for 100% of the power price rise in Queensland, 80% of the power price rise in Western Sydney and 80% of the power price rise in Canberra and at least 50% of the power price rise in other parts of the country. So it’s the carbon tax which is specifically designed to put power prices up which is the problem that the Prime Minister is in denial about now. Reporter: Well the regulator was set up under the Howard government with the states in 2006. It was a product of the Coalition government. What would you do about it? You're saying that you wouldn't touch it?

ACMA Investigation Report – AM broadcast by ABC on 9 August 2012 9 Tony Abbott: Well the problem is not the regulation of power prices. The problem is the carbon tax putting up power prices. And you see [reporter] the Prime Minister has a smile on her face every time the power bill goes up because the whole point of the carbon tax is to raise the price on power. I mean she keeps saying, we’ve got to put a price on carbon, we’ve got to price carbon. Well the whole point of pricing carbon is to make your power more expensive. Reporter: But by what you're saying here this morning, you're saying that this issue isn't a problem even though the regulator himself has pointed out that he's been in effect powerless to do anything about it even though he's known it's been a problem too for 14 months. Tony Abbott: This is a fabrication by the Prime Minister. This is an absolute furphy from the Prime Minister. Why should we believe the Prime Minister now about so-called gold plating of power infrastructure when she's never talked about it for the last five years? And why can we believe anything this Prime Minister says? Let's face it, she told us before the last election there would be no carbon tax and there is. She told us that prices wouldn't go up and they are going up. Now she tells us that it's not the carbon tax. Well obviously it is the carbon tax which is driving up power prices. Reporter: Is the risk of an occasional brown-out acceptable in a first world country like Australia? Tony Abbott: I think it's very important that we have security of energy supply and I don't think any rational power supplier would be overdoing it. They would be putting in as much investment as is needed to ensure that they properly do their job. And look the Prime Minister it's worth pointing out is giving us a very different tune on investment in power supply to that which she gives us on investment in the national broadband network. Reporter: On that national broadband network, the company has revealed a blow-out in the cost of the NBN. But the company says that's because of the initial extra costs of a deal that it's done with Optus which will see an extra 500,000 customers connected. […]

ACMA Investigation Report – AM broadcast by ABC on 9 August 2012 10 Appendix B Considerations which the ACMA has regard to in assessing whether or not broadcast material is factual in character

 The primary consideration is whether, according to the natural and ordinary meaning of the language used and the substantive nature of the message conveyed, the relevant material is presented as a statement of fact or as an expression of opinion.  In that regard, the relevant statement must be evaluated in its context, i.e. contextual indications from the rest of the broadcast (including tenor and tone) are relevant in assessing the meaning conveyed to the ordinary reasonable listener/viewer.  The use of language such as ‘it seems to me’, ‘we consider/think/believe’ tends to indicate that a statement is presented as an opinion. However, a common sense judgment is required as to how the substantive nature of the statement would be understood by the ordinary reasonable listener/viewer, and the form of words introducing the relevant statement is not conclusive.  Inferences of a factual nature made from observed facts are usually still characterised as factual material (subject to context); to qualify as an opinion/viewpoint, an inference reasoned from observed facts would usually have to be presented as an inference of a judgmental or contestable kind.  The identity of the person making the statement would not in and of itself determine whether the statement is factual material or opinion, i.e. it is not possible to conclude that because a statement was made by an interviewee, it was necessarily a statement of opinion rather than factual material.  Statements in the nature of prediction as to future events would nearly always be characterised as statements of opinion.

ACMA Investigation Report – AM broadcast by ABC on 9 August 2012 11 Appendix C Complainant’s submission

The complainant stated in his complaint to the ABC of 9 August 2012 that:

Mr Abbott’s statements concerning power charges were plainly wrong. There is already public furore about this issue but I still wish to make a formal complaint to ensure that it gets processed through the ABC and is measured against ABC editorial standards.

Early in the interview with [the reporter], Mr Abbott said “but the problem is now, the carbon tax is now, the carbon tax is responsible for 100% of the power price rise in Queensland, the carbon tax is responsible for 80% of the power price rise in Western Sydney, the carbon tax is responsible for 80% of the power price rise in Canberra and at least 50% of the power price rise in other parts of the country’.

These are strong, absolute statements of fact that carry weight in the public arena. But they are lies and I believe the ABC needs to act on them as a matter of urgency in order to protect its own integrity.

The complainant stated in his response to the ABC of 14 September 2012 that:

Having heard the broadcast, I would argue that despite the rigorous challenging of Mr Abbott’s statements on that day there would be many in the audience who were persuaded to believe him by sheer power of his delivery. On this point I suggest you get some of your senior executives to re-listen to the interview. They will hear Mr Abbott, one of the most senior and respected figures in Australian public life present his ‘facts’ on electricity prices with such breathtaking certainty that many thousands of people throughout Australia will have been ‘drawn to the conclusion’ that the carbon tax is responsible for their escalating bills.

The complainant stated in his response to the ABC of 8 October 2012 that:

In your latest email you continue to justify your position on Mr Abbott’s statements by saying that ‘media savvy politicians of all political persuasions engage in spin and seek to define issues of a manner that is suitable to them’. I agree, but that is beside the point because Mr Abbott’s quantified, absolute statement on power prices was not spin, it was a demonstrable and significant lie which is another matter entirely. Where a serious lie is involved, it is irrelevant whether it is ‘rigorously challenged’ or whether the audience is ‘well placed to draw its own conclusions’; the lie is an issue in its own right and because Mr Abbott did not retract his lie during the interview, it remains the responsibility of the ABC to ensure that it is rebutted retrospectively to prevent it from continuing to poison the debate on carbon pricing.

ACMA Investigation Report – AM broadcast by ABC on 9 August 2012 12 Parliament is quite capable of differentiating between spin and lies under its rules of Parliamentary Privilege and the penalties for lying are severe. Where it is then that the ABC has so much trouble in making this same distinction? Surely the standards of accuracy that apply to politicians in parliament are sensible enough to be applicable also to direct and indirect contributors to the ABC such as journalists, panellists and interviewees. We do not condone our politicians lying to each other in parliament so why should be condone them lying to us in public!

The complainant stated in his complaint to the ACMA of 22 October 2012 that:

Mr Abbott told a serious, demonstrable lie during his interview with [the reporter]….The lie was allowed to pass with little challenge from [the reporter] and a retraction was never sought. This was a particularly nasty lie which many people would have believed and would still be linking their power bills to its message. Lying is unfortunately becoming an almost normal part of debate in this country so I thought I would test the limits of the ABC’s attitudes to lying on its networks. If we cannot trust the ABC, who can we trust? I was hopeful that a rebuttal or retraction of Mr Abbott’s lie. Nothing of the sort has occurred. [The ABC] has in effect classified Mr Abbott’s lie as being ‘factually accurate’ as measured against the ABC’s Code of Practice…

The complainant further submitted to the ACMA on 11 March 2013 that:

… I do not believe that the interviewer …made reasonable effort to ensure that Mr Abbott's explicit statement was accurate and presented in context and so I ask that my complaint be evaluated under the entirety of the Code (i.e including standard 2.1).

With such an important, categorical, and purportedly factual statement, the interviewer should not have let the statement pass without question or debate. What were Mr Abbott's sources? What about the compensation payments for the carbon tax components of the electricity price rises? Did the price freeze in Queensland have anything to do with the distorted Queensland 100% figure? Wouldn't the Queensland Government have to recoup their foregone network/poles/distribution costs at some later date? Where did the specific Western Sydney figures come from given that there is a market mechanism for electricity in NSW as well as a regulated price? What did Mr. Abbott mean by "other parts of the country"? Did this include the rest of NSW, or Victoria, or SA etc?

I was certainly misled by Mr Abbott's statement and the more I have delved into the real facts on electricity pricing throughout Australia, the more it has become apparent that Mr Abbott's "facts" were distorted and simplified to an extent that should have made them unacceptable as factual information under the ABC's Code.

In your evaluation of my complaint I also believe that you should examine [the ABC’s Audience and Consumer Affairs’] interpretation of the Code in relation to the interaction between standards 2.1, 2.2, and 3.1.

A close reading of [the ABC’s Audience and Consumer Affairs’] emails indicate that because he (the ABC) considered that reasonable effort was made by the interviewer under standard 2.1, this was sufficient for Mr Abbott's statement to meet the Code's accuracy standards. [The ABC’s Audience and Consumer Affairs’] emails strongly infer that [it] did not check the real accuracy of the statement nor did [it] ask me (the complainant) for evidence.

ACMA Investigation Report – AM broadcast by ABC on 9 August 2012 13 I believe this is an invalid and dangerous interpretation of the Code which should be questioned by ACMA and the ABC. At the least I would argue that [the ABC’s Audience and Consumer Affairs’] should have progressed the complaint to a presumably more robust appraisal regime under standard 3.1 of the Code.

I refer you to the attached documents below for evidence that Mr Abbott's statement was materially misleading for its simplicity and duplicity.

The more you look, the more you will find that the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth was not evident here.

Sensible, factual debate is a rapidly disappearing commodity in today's news cycles but I believe the ABC and ACMA can and must take steps to make a difference.

ACMA Investigation Report – AM broadcast by ABC on 9 August 2012 14 Appendix D Broadcaster’s submission

The ABC stated in its response to the complainant of 14 September 2012 that:

Having reviewed the broadcast, we believe that Mr Abbott’s statements were rigorously tested and challenged by the interviewer and we cannot agree that he was permitted to state inaccurate claims unchallenged. The interviewer repeatedly put it to Mr Abbott that electricity price increases were largely due to state governments spending on ‘gold plating’ their infrastructure and raising revenue through their power bills, and she referred to statements by the Opposition’s energy spokesman and the energy regulator who had publicly stated this was the case.

On review, we believe the audience would be well placed to draw its own conclusions on Mr Abbott’s statements given the rigour of the interview, and we cannot agree that every statement he makes must be examined and challenged for accuracy during a live interview, where the reporter has a responsibility to pursue a range of issues within the available time and not to go off on tangents.

We believe the interview has met with accuracy standards in section 2 of the ABC Editorial Policies that require the reporter to make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented in context. On review, we believe the interviewer did make reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy.

The ABC stated in its later letter to the complainant of 25 September 2012 that:

As I previously explained, live political interviews are not an exact science and the interviewer generally seeks to cover a range of newsworthy issues within the time available. Media savvy politicians of all political persuasions engage in spin and seek to define issues in a manner that is suitable to them. Mr Abbott has been interviewed on electricity prices and the related issue of the carbon tax repeatedly on the ABC and we are satisfied that his claims were rigorously challenged in this interview, despite the fact that he may continue to push a certain line of argument; a line of argument that the program’s audience is well placed to draw its own conclusions on, given the broad range of perspectives broadcast on this issue by ABC news and current affairs programs.

ACMA Investigation Report – AM broadcast by ABC on 9 August 2012 15