Investigation Report No. BI-123

Investigation Report No. BI-123SummaryFile no. BI-123Broadcaster Australian Broadcasting CorporationStation ABC1Type of service National - televisionName of program Q&ADate of broadcast 17 August 2015 Relevant code Standard 4.5 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (revised in 2014)Date finalised 4 December 2015Decision No breach of standard 4.5 [unduly favour one perspective over another] Error: Reference source not foundOpening In October 2015, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) commenced an investigation into a Q&A episode broadcast on ABC1 by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (the ABC) on 17 August 2015. The ACMA received a complaint alleging that the broadcast favoured same-sex marriage.The program Q&A is a panel discussion program, described on the ABC website as: Q&A is about democracy in action – the audience asks the questions. It doesn't matter who you are, or where you're from - everyone can have a go and take it up to our politicians and opinion makers. Q&A is live to air - happening as viewers watch – and it’s all about encouraging people to engage with politics and society.1The program investigated featured panellists:  Brendan O’Neill, editor of online magazine spiked  Kelly O’Dwyer, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer  Richard Di Natale, Federal leader of the Australian Greens  Katy Faust, American traditional marriage advocate  Sam Dastyari, Labor Party Senator and Chair of a Senate inquiry into corporate tax avoidanceThe panel discussion dealt with a range of topics including: then current proposals for a referendum or plebiscite on same-sex marriage or a vote in Parliament to amend the Marriage Act; and the rights of the child in the same-sex marriage debate. Tony Jones was the host of the program.A transcript of the relevant extracts from the program is at Attachment A.Assessment and submissions When assessing content, the ACMA considers the meaning conveyed by the material, including the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone, images and any inferences that may be drawn. 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.2Once the ACMA has ascertained the meaning of the material that was broadcast, it then assesses compliance with the relevant code of practice.1 http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/about.htm, accessed 29 October 2015. 2 Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 at pp 164–167. 2 The investigation takes into account relevant submissions from the complainant (at Attachment B) and the broadcaster (at Attachment C). Issue: ImpartialityRelevant Standard The ACMA has investigated the broadcast against the following provision of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (revised in 2014) (the Code).Standard 4.5 Do not unduly favour one perspective over another. The Code requires that standards are interpreted and applied in accordance with the applicable principles. In the case of impartiality and diversity of perspectives, the relevant principles include: [T]he ABC is guided by [the following] hallmarks of impartiality:  a balance that follows the weight of evidence;  fair treatment;  open-mindedness; and  opportunities over time for principal relevant perspectives on matters of contention to be expressed. The ABC aims to present, over time, content that addresses a broad range of subjects from a diversity of perspectives reflecting a diversity of experiences, presented in a diversity of ways from a diversity of sources, including content created by ABC staff, generated by audiences and commissioned or acquired from external content-makers. 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 4.5 of the Code. Reasons The complaint is that the program included three panellists who were pro same-sex marriage and two panellists who were anti same-sex marriage, and the ABC is biased as it appears to unduly favour same-sex marriage over traditional marriage.ACMA Investigation Report—Q&A broadcast by ABC TV on 17 August 2015 3 of 18 Error: Reference source not foundIn this case, the ACMA considers that the hallmarks of impartiality were met.4 A balance that follows the weight of evidenceProposals to enable same-sex marriage are contentious matters of public importance. The program explored issues in the current debate.Achieving impartiality requires a broadcaster to present content in a way which avoids conveying prejudgment or giving effect to any preferences of the presenter or reporter. However, a program that presents a perspective that is opposed by a particular person or group is not inherently partial. As noted in the Principles, impartiality does not require that every perspective receives equal time, or that every facet of every issue is presented.The ACMA accepts the ABC’s submission that: The ABC’s impartiality standards do not insist that a panel program such as Q&A have an even number of proponents of either side of the same-sex marriage debate, nor do they require that the panellists themselves be impartial.The question of same-sex marriage is strongly debated in the community and the audience would expect that opposing views would be robustly explored in the program.In this case, the program made it very clear that there was a range of perspectives in the debate. The host took questions from the studio audience and sought the responses of the panellists, eliciting their opinions on the issues. He asked probing questions to explore viewpoints and the panellists were given the opportunity to respond fully to these questions. There was no final editorial opinion or judgement stated by the ABC.The discussion on the program reflected the current debate in the community and did not infer a consensus on issues in favour of either same-sex or traditional marriage. In this way, the program achieved a balance that followed the weight of evidence. Fair treatmentThe complainant expressed particular concern with the ‘challenging’ questioning of one of the panellists, Katy Faust. Ms Faust was given several opportunities to provide her point of view, during the program and she responded at length. At times in the discussion Mr Jones specifically asked for Ms Faust’s views, including asking her for ‘the final word’ to close the segment on same-sex marriage.Mr Jones tested propositions made by each of the panellists, including Ms Faust. In doing this he maintained a neutral tone and was courteous and respectful. While Mr Jones occasionally interrupted Ms Faust and other panellists, this was to advance the discussion or to clarify points made. These interruptions did not limit the opportunity for the panellists to present their perspectives. Although strong views were expressed, and some panellists criticised others, the discussion was moderated by the host.Open-mindednessMr Jones advanced the discussion by eliciting the panellists’ views, clarifying their statements where required, and giving the audience the opportunity to question the panellists. Questions were asked from both sides of the debate.Each of the panellists was given the opportunity to express their views on same-sex marriage and a range of perspectives was provided. In this way the pro same-sex and the pro traditional marriage cases were explored and arguments in support of each were ventilated, regardless of the number of panellists in favour of same-sex marriage.ACMA Investigation Report—Q&A broadcast by ABC TV on 17 August 2015 5 of 18 Error: Reference source not foundOpportunities over time for principal relevant perspectives of contention to be expressedAs noted above, Mr Jones gave all the panellists the opportunity to present their viewpoints for and against same-sex marriage. Between them, the panellists presented a range of relevant perspectives on the contentious issues in the debate. In this way, the obligation to provide principal relevant perspectives was met within the course of the program.Further, the ACMA accepts the ABC’s submission that, over time, it has presented a diversity of perspectives about same-sex marriage and the specific issue of children growing up with same-sex parents. This is demonstrated by the broadcasts referred to in the ABC’s submission at Attachment C.6 Attachment A Transcript of Q&A broadcast on ABC TV on 17 August 20153 TONY JONES: Good evening and welcome to Q&A. I'm Tony Jones and here to answer your questions tonight: the editor of Spiked, Brendan O'Neill, whose latest collection of essays is called A Duty to Offend; the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, Kelly O'Dwyer; the Federal leader of the Greens Richard Di Natale; American traditional marriage advocate Katy Faust; and the chair of the Senate inquiry into corporate tax avoidance, Labor's Sam Dastyari. Please welcome our panel. Thank you very much. We’ll go straight to our first question in the audience from Carla Stacey.[…] GAYBIES00:11:46 GINI DEAKIN: There was no referendum to ask whether it was legal for my mums to have a baby. There was no plebiscite when the law changed to allow me to have two mothers listed on my birth certificate, so why should there be a referendum or plebiscite on whether my mums can get married? TONY JONES: Richard Di Natale, we’ll start with you.RICHARD DI NATALE: The simple answer is that Parliament should deal with it. Tony Abbott had a chance to drag the country into the 21st century and end discrimination, to end prejudice and he used every tactic in the book to block it, to continue to support prejudice and discrimination in marriage, to not recognise that the love between two people is love, regardless of their gender or their sexuality. He stacked his party room with National MPs. He has now come up with this tortured position it might be a plebiscite. It might be a referendum. No, we just should have the Parliament deal with this. We could have this done so quickly. We could have this done this week. We could have a bill before the Parliament supported by a majority of parliamentarians. If Tony Abbott did what he espouses and that is to respect the freedom and liberty of his own backbenchers and allow them a free vote and he won't do it. He won't do it and it’s part of the reason that he is languishing in terms of public support because he is a man stuck in the past. He belongs to another century and the sooner the Liberal Party change the Prime Minister, I think the country will be better for it.TONY JONES: Richard, aren't you, from your point of view, at all nervous in advocating that? At all nervous about the fact, given the numbers of the Coalition party room, just on the conscience vote issue, aren't you nervous that it wouldn't have gotten up in the Parliament anyway? RICHARD DI NATALE: No, I think it would - it will get up and I think there are a lot of MPs who do what they do in that place and that is sniff the breeze. There will be a lot of nervous backbenchers who will be worried about winning their seats back at this election under Tony Abbott and they'll go where the political breeze takes them and on this issue, the public are overwhelming in support of ending discrimination. Just move on and do it. I don't understand how we can be here in the 21st century arguing for a position that is based on prejudice but that’s what this is.TONY JONES: Can I just ask one quick question though on the referendum thing? That is the Irish did have a referendum and that was widely celebrated in this country once the result came out pro-gay marriage. Why not have a referendum here? RICHARD DI NATALE: Well, we shouldn't have a referendum because that deals with the 3 Transcript obtained from: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4273039.htm, accessed 3 November 2015.ACMA Investigation Report—Q&A broadcast by ABC TV on 17 August 2015 7 of 18 Error: Reference source not foundConstitution. You don't need to mess around with the Constitution on this issue. We have said, look, if the Prime Minister is absolutely hell bent on a plebiscite and that's the only way we’re going to get this reform through, then it has to be at this election and it has to be the Parliament that sets the question, because he will engineer this in a way that it doesn't get up, much like the referendum that we had, as you remember, on the Republic. We can't let the Prime Minister make a captain's call on this. I just think we should have a vote of the Parliament. We could get it done so quickly and move on.TONY JONES: All right. Let’s hear from Kelly O'Dwyer. You would have favoured a vote in the Parliament, wouldn’t you, originally? KELLY O'DWYER: Well, it’s no secret that I have long advocated same sex marriage. I think I was one of the third parliamentarians on my side of politics to make public statements in 2013 and the truth is I would have favoured a free vote and that's the position that I articulated in the party room because I think that we are the party that can, in fact, allow their members to make a decision based on their own conscience. I think that is very much the tenets of our Liberal philosophy. It’s the basis on which Robert Menzies founded the party more than 70 years ago. However, I listened to my colleagues in what was a six hour party room meeting and that meeting really allowed every member who wanted to speak on this issue an opportunity to speak. I spoke and I spoke very forcefully on this issue and a number of my colleagues also spoke and they were in favour of the traditional definition of marriage. Now, I do respect that they have a different view to mine and I respect that it is based, for them, on their religious beliefs in many cases. I do think that we do need to understand that in society there are people who have got different views on this issue. Now, I think probably the position that we came to, which is to have a statement from the public about where we should go on this issue in the form of a plebiscite, I think that that’s...TONY JONES: Do you rule out the idea of a referendum? KELLY O'DWYER: Oh, absolutely.TONY JONES: Because as I’ve just said earlier, the Irish actually had a referendum when they were asked to add to the Constitution that marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex. Now, that's the kind of path that Scott Morrison would like you to go down. You disagree? KELLY O'DWYER: Well, I think, in the case of Ireland, they needed to conduct a referendum to change their Constitution because it was unclear whether their Parliament could legislate for marriage. Now, that's not the case in relation to our Constitution and our Parliament. Section 51 21 of our Constitution, as has been, I think, very well-articulated by our first law officer George Brandis, has said we can, in fact, legislate to change the Marriage Act and, not only that, the High Court, as recently as two years ago, confirmed that the Parliament has, in fact, that power. So, we don’t need to change...TONY JONES: So, why do you think Scott Morrison is pushing so hard for a referendum? KELLY O'DWYER: Well, I’m not sure that he’s still pushing for that, frankly, because I think it’s been made very clear by the Attorney General, who is our first law officer of this nation, that, in fact, that's not required in order to change the Marriage Act, so a plebiscite, I think, would be the right way to go.TONY JONES: All right. Okay, thank you. We’ve got more questions on this so I’m going to pause you there.KATY FAUST: Can I jump in? 8 TONY JONES: Yes, I want you to jump in.KATY FAUST: Because I was told that Americans don't interrupt enough and that I should jump in when I, you know. So, first, I want to say, Gini, thank you for your question. I'm really grateful that you feel like you’re able to speak up and share how you feel. Certainly that's not the case for a lot of kids with same sex parents because this debate has been framed as one that is based on prejudice and what that does is it shuts down a real robust debate. And in our country, we really didn't have one. It was so demonised from the beginning that anybody that supported traditional marriage was doing so based on bias or bigotry or hatred or homophobia or something and what it did is it totally shut it down and people felt like they could not speak up. And the truth is that while there are people with religious convictions, obviously, you know, members of your Party feel that, you know, this is based on their, you know, deeply held religious beliefs, I think that our side needs to do a better job of making their case using natural law and because I don't hold - I don’t think that people should be accountable to my religion. I'm accountable to my religion but all of us are accountable to natural law which governs our lives.TONY JONES: But, Katy, can I just - can I just, Katy, sorry, can I just interrupt you there?KATY FAUST: Yeah.TONY JONES: Because you run a blog called Ask The Bigot, correct?KATY FAUST: Yes.TONY JONES: Okay. On the blog, you do spell out some of your own religious views.KATY FAUST: Yep.TONY JONES: Along these lines: “True Christianity will oppose the narrative homosexuality is a positive and normal variation of human sexuality”. Now, does that belief underpin your opposition to gay marriage? KATY FAUST: I have a lot to say when I started blogging. Some of it was to the public policy issue and a lot of it was to churches that I feel like have not dealt with this issue well. I see a lot of churches in the United States completely rolling over and just changing what their historical traditions have said in the past to fit the current cultural narrative, so that statement was for them and our side now needs to...TONY JONES: It’s a statement of your belief or not? KATY FAUST: It’s the belief that Christianity rejects that idea and if they are going to hold fast to their traditions, then they need to be consistent but when you are talking about public policy, scripture should not play a role in it and that our side needs to make convincing secular arguments, using social science and natural law.TONY JONES: Katy, our questioner, in fact the lady next to our questioner, has her hand up.KATY FAUST: Yep.QUESTION FROM THE FLOOR00:20:20 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'm Gini's mother. I'd like to dispute your assertion that your voices have been shut down. In fact, your US Supreme Court, in the Obergefell case, heard all the evidence. They heard submissions from you yourself and from a lot of other people and they heard all the evidence and they found that it is the banning of gay marriage which is causing harm and humiliation to the children of same sex couples. If you claim to speak for people likeACMA Investigation Report—Q&A broadcast by ABC TV on 17 August 2015 9 of 18 Error: Reference source not foundGini, if you claim to support her, why do you not support her right to have married parents? KATY FAUST: Thank you for the question. So I’ll that there are organisations devoted to giving Gini a voice and there is nobody that gives a voice to kids that may express some misgivings about their upbringing. As a matter of fact, I was in Adelaide two days ago and in a 24-hour period I had two women come to me, two separately, one in person and one that approached me on Twitter, who said "This was my situation when I was young. I have never told anybody about it". Both - one said for 20 years, I’ve never shared how I felt and the other one said, "It has been 30 years since I left that house and I never felt like I could talk to anybody because it seemed like everybody else had these glowing, you know, household situations and that didn't represent me". So, on that flight home, I was sitting next to a woman who was from San Francisco and we get into the chitchat and she says "Well, you know, what are you doing here?" and I was like "Well, you know" because, you know, Americans and they can be a little crazy, and I explained to her the connection between marriage and children's rights and she said, "You know, that's so fascinating, I’ve never heard that perspective before. I have never considered that children's rights was connected to the marriage issue at all". And so, while a few of us were able to get briefs into the Supreme Court, the truth is that the American public has never really heard credible arguments on this issue from the other side because we have been shut out of meetings.TONY JONES: Okay, Katy, I’m…RICHARD DI NATALE: That's because there aren't any.KATY FAUST: So let’s talk about that.TONY JONES: Sam Dastyari wants to get in on this. I want to hear from the rest of our panel. SAM DASTYARI: There is so much with what you have said just then that is so offensive, it’s hard to know where to start. The politician in me tells me that I should be saying that while I disagree with your views, I wholeheartedly respect them but I find that very hard. I find it very hard to respect a lot of your views on what you have said because I don't think it comes from a place of love. I think it comes from a place of hate and I think that there is so much I can't accept the fact that you believe that Gini's parents, who I have no doubt love each other, you know, that they’re hurting their child simply because of the love they have for one another. I can't accept that. I think so much - I worry that so much of your views stem, not really with an issue with just marriage. I think some of it stems from an issue with homosexuality and you’ve described homosexuality as a lifestyle. You have said that homosexuality drives us further away from God. These are your comments. You run a blog called Ask the Bigot. And I think that there are people in this country who have different views on same sex marriage. They’re entitled to have different views on same sex marriage. People are going to have the debate but I think we have to have that debate at a higher level and, I’m sorry, but I think this American evangelical claptrap is the last thing we need in the debate.TONY JONES: So before we come to the rest of the panel, I’m just going to go quickly, because there are other people in Australia that have different views to yours, Sam, and we’ve got one person who has got a question, Jeremy Bell. We’ll go to Jeremy. SYMBOLIC ATTACK ON MARRIAGE00:23:33 JEREMY BELL: It’s often said that if we change the law to recognise same sex marriage, this will give same sex couples what they want and it won't affect anyone else. I think that I speak for many supporters of traditional marriage when I say that what sets marriage apart from other loving relationships is that a man and a woman are capable of having children together, or at least normally they are; having as opposed to just raising them together. Now, existing marriage laws in Australia symbolically reaffirm this understanding and reforming these laws would symbolically attack it. Is not, therefore, fair to say that marriage equality, legalised 10 marriage equality, would send a negative symbolic message to people who share this traditional understanding of marriage? TONY JONES: Okay. We’ll start with someone I haven't heard from on the panel yet, Brendan O'Neill.BRENDAN O’NEILL: Here is what freaks me out about gay marriage. It presents itself as this kind of liberal civil rightsy issue but it has this really ugly intolerant streak to it. Anyone who opposes gay marriage is demonised, harassed, we have seen people thrown out of their jobs because they criticised gay marriage. We have seen people ejected from polite society. You know, 200 years ago, if you didn't believe in God, you wouldn’t have a hope in hell of getting ahead in public life. Today, if you don’t believe in gay marriage, you don’t have a hope in hell of getting ahead in public life. There’s a real, ugly element to this and I think, you know, you really see it with the whole cake shop phenomenon. This whole thing around the western world where people are going to Christian traditional cake shops and saying to them, "Hey, you stupid Christians, make this cake for me", and if they don't they call the police. There are equality cases. Shops have closed down. It’s like a 21st century form of religious persecution. It’s horrendous and I think, you know, of course some people support gay marriage, as we’ve heard. That's absolutely fine. But what's extraordinary and unacceptable is that they cannot tolerate the existence of people who do not support gay marriage and I think we sometimes fail to understand how extraordinary that is and I think the reason Tony Abbott is very defensive on this issue and is erming and ahing and shifting from the free vote to the not free vote and all this stuff, he clearly has a problem with gay marriage but he can't articulate it because we live in a climate in which it’s not acceptable, as we have just seen in Sam's attack on Katy, calling her hateful and saying she’s talking claptrap, it’s not acceptable to express this sentiment in public life.SAM DASTYARI: Well, hang on, no, Brendan...BRENDAN O'NEILL: And I think so Tony Abbott - Tony Abbott is now being described as someone from the dark ages for believing what humanity has believed for thousands of years. Within the space of a decade, something that humanity believed for thousands of years has suddenly become a form of bigotry, a form of hate, something you’re not allowed to express in public life. That extraordinary shift in intolerance is something I think all Liberals like me should be worried about. Gay marriage is not a Liberal issue. It has a deeply illiberal streak.TONY JONES: I just to get want Kelly O'Dwyer to respond to that and go back to the question that we just heard because I think that actually does encapsulate what probably the majority of your Coalition party room pretty much thought, doesn't it? KELLY O'DWYER: Well, to really understand it you'd have to sit through a six-hour meeting, I think, Tony.TONY JONES: Thanks but no thanks.KELLY O'DWYER: But, look, I actually accept the view you have just put that we need to be tolerant of everyone's views. And I think the idea that people are demonised for their very heartfelt, very sincere views is actually quite wrong. I have a heartfelt and sincere view, which is in support of same sex marriage because, like the questioner, Jeremy, I actually do believe that families are the bedrock of our society. I do believe it is important to do what we can to strengthen those families and I think that marriage is one of those sacred institutions that solemnises commitment between two people and I think that that can only strengthen the family unit and so, as a Liberal, I believe that anything that can strengthen the family unit is, in fact, a very good thing so I support it. But I do also think that were we to make changes to the Marriage Act and put in there the fact that we do believe that people of same sex should be able to marry, we also need to have in there some protections for religious institutions, for ACMA Investigation Report—Q&A broadcast by ABC TV on 17 August 2015 11 of 18 Error: Reference source not found those institutions that do, according to their own doctrinal beliefs, have a very sincere view that they don't wish to marry certain people, just as there are people today in religious institutions that won’t, for instance, marry somebody who is not a confirmed Anglican or a Catholic in their church.TONY JONES: All right. We’ve got quite a few questions on this subject. I’m sorry to interrupt you. The next question is from Connor Malanos. GAY PARENTS AND CHILDREN 100:28:20 CONNOR MALANOS: Katy Faust, first, I’d like to start by saying I really respect you for holding your position strongly to yourself, even in the face of a lot of debate that comes about. My question is: considering that scientific studies on homosexual and non traditional marriage and its effect on children have found children raised by two same gender parents do as well, on average, as children raised by two different gender parents, on what basis do you justify your claim that children have a right to have a relationship with their father and mother and, more specifically, only that combination of parents? KATY FAUST: Thank you so much for the question. I think this is really important. First of all, I make the basis of the claim that they have a right to the mother and father because it’s one of the most self evident rights out there, probably only trumped by a parent's right to the child that they bear so and that’s something that’s recognised in the UN convention on the rights of the child that your country ratified in 1990. So it’s widely accepted. Next, let's talk about the studies because this is critical. Interestingly, whenever you are studying family structure, when you are not talking about same sex parenting, social scientists tent to agree on three things. Number one, that non biological parents tend to be more transitory, invest less time and energy and resources into kids and be more dangerous to kids. Number two, they find that anytime trauma - a child loses a parent, that trauma is involved and that that can affect a child in a long term and then they also agree that men and women parent differently and they offer distinct and complementary gifts to their kids. So whenever you’re not talking about same-sex parenting, you’re not studying same sex households, social scientists agree on all of those three things. But suddenly when you study same sex households, even though all three of those are going to be a factor every single time, suddenly children fair just as well. Now, my question is: do you think that that could possibly be because those studies that show that there is no difference do not use random samples and that most of them derive their participants through recruited and volunteer studies? TONY JONES: Katie, can I just interrupt you.KATY FAUST: Yeah.TONY JONES: Because we do actually have effectively a case study. It’s a question that’s come in from Craig Mack and let's hear Craig's story and then the others can comment on this as well.GAY PARENTS AND CHILDREN 200:30:39 CRAIG MACK: So, Katy, as a child I grew up with my single, drug dealing, junkie sometimes hooker mother in an environment that was surrounded by drugs, bikies, domestic violence, child abuse, drug overdoses, death and police raids. I could roll the perfect joint at six and so much more. At 15 I moved in with my gay uncle and his partner of 25 years. Only then did I experience a normal, stable, safe, structured environment that everybody else takes for granted. I have never understood the argument against marriage equality because of the potential damage to children. I'd be dead, in jail or following in my mother's footsteps if it weren't for the two stable gay men who took me in. So my question to you is: as a child of two loving parents, can you explain the damage that that's done and how are the risks any lesser with a straight couple? 12 KATY FAUST: Good, thank you Craig. So, yeah. So, about 10 years ago, I was in - maybe more. I was invited by two women to travel with them to adopt a child that had special needs in an overseas institution and I said "Heck, yes. I'm going with you" and, I know, so hateful huh? But I said, “Absolutely,” right. That you are going to try and repair a damaged situation for a child. You are not inflicting motherlessness or fatherlessness on this child. Really, you are trying to repair something that has been lost, just like so many grandparents do and so many aunts and uncles do when the relationship between mother and father break down and that child is in need of some kind of rescue. And in that situation I would say that adoption agencies need to have all options on the table because you are trying to repair a broken situation. But what we don't want is a system or a family structure that permits intentional fatherless and motherlessness and, because government's interest in marriage is children, it is not how you feel about somebody, Government's interest in marriage is children and so redefining marriage redefines parenthood into an institution where mothers and fathers are not necessary and they’re optional and that’s really not the case in the life of a child. When a child loses a parent, the ones I’ve talked to, they tend to mourn the loss of that parent. So while I absolutely would say we have got to get in and do life with couples that are doing their best to help a child in a broken situation. That's very different than institutionalising a family structure where children will always lose one or the other.TONY JONES: Okay, Katy, I'm sorry to draw you to a conclusion on that point.KATY FAUST: Yeah, thank you.TONY JONES: But I want to hear from the other panellists. Richard Di Natale?RICHARD DI NATALE: Well, I suppose I'm a little concerned that we’ve gone from equal marriage, which is a very different debate to parenting and let's accept the I mean we don't have we support, as a society, the right of same sex couples to be parents and we do it because there’s lots of pseudoscience and gobbledygook out there about the effects on kids. Almost every study demonstrates that the most important factor is whether a child is raised in a loving household and your....KATY FAUST: That's actually not what the studies say though.RICHARD DI NATALE: ...your case studies demonstrates that. It is not biology that influences whether you have got a happy, healthy well-balanced child. It's whether they grow up in a loving household and if there’s any issue that kids growing up in environment with same sex parents have to face, it's the discrimination towards their parents and it is that issue that we should be tackling, not this nonsense argument about whether people of the same sex should be able to raise a child. I mean, we’ve had that debate. That's gone. We’re now having a debate around marriage and whether people should be able to marry. And, look, Brendan, your issue of this is a straw man and suddenly all these advocates are waiting to storm cake shops because they support gay marriage, it's nonsense. And, of course, you’ve - I accept, we’re in a pluralist society and you have to accept that people have different views but you should also be prepared to name it and the issue with marriage is this for me: marriage is an expression of love and commitment between two people. That's what it is. Now, why do we say that one couple should be entitled to express that love and commitment publicly and yet another couple can't do that? The only justification for that is that you think that the love between those people is somehow lesser, it's worth less, it is not as important and it's different and that's what prejudice is.TONY JONES: Okay. I’m just going to - Brendan O'Neill is chomping at the bit here. I’m just going to bring him in. Brendan, keep your answer - keep your - keep it short, okay?BRENDAN O'NEILL: Right, to you - to you marriage is about two people getting together. To other people it's different. To other people it is about starting a family. It's about socialising theACMA Investigation Report—Q&A broadcast by ABC TV on 17 August 2015 13 of 18 Error: Reference source not found next generation.RICHARD DI NATALE: And they can still do that. They can do that. No one’s stopping them from starting a family. BRENDAN O'NEILL: It is about becoming part of a community. My problem - my problem with the gay marriage debate is that it actually increases the state's oversight of family life rather than decreasing it. So the presentation of this as a liberal issue is completely facetious. This is about the state having the right to redefine the moral meaning of marriage. Now, the modern state brokers marriage, we know that. It brokers it. It gives you a certificate. It says you’re married, thumbs up, well done. This gives the state the right to redefine the moral meaning of marriage, which has been an organic thing developed over thousands of years. For me, as a libertarian, that's a step too far and I think for you to redefine a view that was standard for thousands of years as bigotry, that in itself is a form of bigotry because what you’re saying is that you will not tolerate traditionalists. You will not tolerate religious people. You will not tolerate Christians. RICHARD DI NATALE: No. There was a time women couldn't vote. There was a time women couldn’t vote. We’ve moved on.BRENDAN O'NEILL: You will not - right. In the space of...TONY JONES: Okay. Hang on, hang on, Sam Dastyari wants to get in. Please go ahead.SAM DASTYARI: Brendan, where I was born - where I was born in Iraq, you know, marriage is a contract or agreement between one - exclusively between one man and up to four women. I mean there are different standards, there are different rules and frankly...BRENDAN O'NEILL: But opposite sexes.SAM DASTYARI: Yes, opposite sexes.BRENDAN O'NEILL: This is what’s new. So why will you not admit the newness of the institution? Why do you pretend that it’s the same as the other institution that has existed for thousands of years?SAM DASTYARI: Brendan, Brendan, the question for me - the question for me isn’t whether or not...RICHARD DI NATALE: So discrimination is only an issue if it’s entrenched for decades? I don't understand. If it’s discrimination, it’s discrimination.TONY JONES: The facts are we need people to be able to finish their points. Go ahead.SAM DASTYARI: Look, I accept - I accept that this is an idea that has been debated and brought into the public space more recently. That is definitely correct. That doesn't mean it’s wrong. This is about love. It’s about equality. It’s a fundamental human right.BRENDAN O'NEILL: What's wrong - what’s wrong is the silencing, the sacking of people, the demonisation of people, the harassment of people who have a different view.RICHARD DI NATALE: This is a panel of discussion. You've got a voice. You've got your own blog. I mean there are people out there talking about this all the time.BRENDAN O'NEILL: Gay marriage activists - gay marriage activists compare - they compare - they compare themselves - they - hold on. Hold on. They compare themselves to Martin 14 Luther King. Martin Luther King said, "We do not hate our enemies. We love them". The exact opposite is the case of gay marriage activists. The exact opposite.TONY JONES: Okay. All right. Thank you, Brendan. All right, now, Katy, I will give you the final word because a lot has been said about your views. Obviously right now gay couples can adopt children and they can have children and they can bring them up. How does the marriage equation change that? KATY FAUST: Well, you know, some of you have said there is no good reason, right. There is no good reason except hatred and I guess I would ask you to consider this from a child's point of view, that not every couple has children. Every child as a mother and father and every child has a right to that mother and father, a natural right and despite what you may say, social science doesn't just say nice people determine best outcome for kids. The reality is that the married mother/father household determines the best outcome.RICHARD DI NATALE: Nonsense. That’s rubbish. KATY FAUST: Oh my, rubbish. RICHARD DI NATALE: That’s nonsense. KATY FAUST: But it’s actually not.RICHARD DI NATALE: It is. Edith Cowan University…KATY FAUST: And social science has been studying alternative family structures for about, you know…BRENDAN O'NEILL: It is bigotry, it’s hateful, it’s prejudice.KATY FAUST: Right. Right. It’s not that it stems from biology. BRENDAN O'NEILL: All they typical…RICHARD DI NATALE: No, it’s just wrong. BRENDAN O'NEILL: It’s extraordinary. RICHARD DI NATALE: It just wrong.KATY FAUST: Well, it’s not wrong and we know that it’s not wrong because when kids lose a relationship with a parent, they really tend to suffer. I think most of us can look at our childhoods and say, "That hurt. When I lost a parent, that hurt" and so we don't want to inflict intentional motherless and fatherlessness on kids in the name of progress.TONY JONES: All right. Okay. I’m sorry, because we’ve got a lot of other questions to come to, we have to draw a line under this. We probably should do it now. You are watching Q&A, where we encourage our panellists to express their opinions but stick to the facts. So if you hear any dodgy claims on Q&A, send a tweet using the hashtags #factcheck and #qanda. Last week’s tweets generated a fact check on penalty rates by The Conversation. Keep an eye on our Twitter account for future fact checks. Well, the next question is a video. It’s from Andrew Tran in Perth.[…]ACMA Investigation Report—Q&A broadcast by ABC TV on 17 August 2015 15 of 18 Error: Reference source not foundAttachment BComplainant’s submissions 7 October 2015 the complainant submitted to the ACMA:BiasThis was the response to a complaint I made about a Q&A program where they had a panel with 2 representatives from overseas who were anti-same-sex marriage and 3 Australian politicians who were pro-same-sex marriage:Audience and Consumer Affairs have reviewed the program and assessed your complaint against the ABC’s editorial standards for impartiality which state in part 4.5: do not unduly favour one perspective over another.The ABC’s impartiality standards do not insist that a panel program such as Q&A have an even number of proponents of either side of the same-sex marriage debate, nor do they require that the panellists themselves be impartial. Rather what is required is that a diversity of perspectives be presented over time and that no perspective is favoured above others. During the course of the program all panellists were given the opportunity to debate, discuss and engage with the key issues in the same-sex marriage debate as presented by the questioners. The questions presented to the panel represented a diversity of opinion in the same-sex marriage debate and included a number directed at the panellists who disagreed with same-sex marriage. Katy Faust, in particular, was asked a number of questions from audience members and Tony Jones, in relation to her views on same-sex marriage. My complaint is that the ABC claims that they do not favour pro-SSM over anti but I think they do. Whenever they have SSM related panels there has never been a panel that has had a majority of anti-SSM proponents. This is not to mention that the audience always appears to have more pro-SSM than anti-SSM. There is a continual issue with their reporting of SSM events. Take, for example, Dolce and Gabbana’s statement against same-sex parenting – the ABC didn’t report D&G’s statements – they reported Elton John’s boycott of D&G. Take the Uluru bark petition in support of traditional marriage. The ABC didn’t even report on it. Then there were the thousands of flowers that were placed in front of Parliament House as a thank you to Tony Abbott for supporting traditional marriage – the only mention of this is at the end of an article talking about the pro-SSM lights at Canberra airport http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-10/canberra-airport-lights-up-for-marriage- equality/6684238.The ABC appears to unduly favour SSM over traditional marriage. For example, their Fact Check on same-sex parenting (SSP). They quote conservative groups who claim that opposite-sex parents are better and then the article claims that they are incorrect, making references to some of the research done in that field. However, they do not go back to the conservative groups for a comment or a rebuttal - something that they regularly do in Fact Check articles. This is not to mention that the article itself also appeared to be biased as it ignored the flaws it the 'pro-SSP' studies it quoted as well as the backgrounds on the researchers it quoted on the 'pro-SSP' side. It also ignored several important 'anti-SSP' studies.16 20 August 2015 the complainant submitted to the ABC:I just wanted to ask why there were 3 politicians supporting same-sex marriage on the recent Q&A program and none who opposed? There were only 2 people on the panel opposing same-sex marriage. Even Tony Jones asked questions challenging Christianity and Katy Faust's views.It appeared that the panel was set-up to show stronger support for the pro-same-sex marriage view.Is this appropriate?ACMA Investigation Report—Q&A broadcast by ABC TV on 17 August 2015 17 of 18 Error: Reference source not foundAttachment CBroadcaster’s submissions4 November 2015 the ABC submitted to the ACMA:A diversity of perspectives has been presented about same-sex marriage as well as the specific issue of children growing up in families with same-sex parents, as evidenced by the following brief snapshot:- Fact Check – Fact or Fiction: A mother and father is better than same-sex parents, 21 August 2015, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-24/same-sex-parenting-fact-or- fiction/6616352. See also the hyperlinks to sources relied upon for this Fact Check.- Q&A – Ethics, Equality and Evasion, 17 August 2015, http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4273039.htm - National Press Club: Senator Cory Bernardi and Senator Penny Wong debate same- sex marriage, 29 July 2015, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-29/bernardi-and- wong-debate-same-sex-marriage/6656380 - Religion and Ethics – Same-Sex ‘Marriage’: Evolution or Deconstruction of Marriage and the Family?, 24 July 2015, http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2015/07/24/4280213.htm - Q&A Special: Between a Frock and a Hard Place, 18 June 2015, http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4254204.htm - 891 ABC Adelaide – Adelaide’s same-sex fathers on Australia’s marriage equality debate: ‘We’re just like any other family’, 9 June 2015, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-09/we-are-just-like-any-other-family-adelaides- same-sex-fathers-say/6528536 - The World Today – Same-sex marriage: Catholic bishop warns marriage equality could see children of gay couples become ‘next Stolen Generation’, 4 June 2015, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-04/bishop-says-children-of-gay-couples-next- stolen-generation/6522310 Many more stories presenting perspectives on this issue are readily available on the ABC website.7 September 2015 the ABC submitted to the complainant:Thank you for your complaint about the 17 August episode of Q&A. Your complaint has been considered by Audience and Consumer Affairs, a unit which is separate to and independent of the content making areas within the ABC. Our role is to review complaints alleging that ABC content has breached the ABC’s editorial standards.Audience and Consumer Affairs have reviewed the program and assessed your complaint against the ABC’s editorial standards for impartiality which state in part 4.5: do not unduly favour one perspective over another.The ABC’s impartiality standards do not insist that a panel program such as Q&A have an even number of proponents of either side of the same-sex marriage debate, nor do they require that the panellists themselves be impartial. Rather what is required is that a diversity 18 of perspectives be presented over time and that no perspective is favoured above others. During the course of the program all panellists were given the opportunity to debate, discuss and engage with the key issues in the same-sex marriage debate as presented by the questioners. The questions presented to the panel represented a diversity of opinion in the same-sex marriage debate and included a number directed at the panellists who disagreed with same-sex marriage. Katy Faust, in particular, was asked a number of questions from audience members and Tony Jones, in relation to her views on same-sex marriage. Audience and Consumer Affairs are satisfied that the program did not unduly favour one perspective over another, in keeping with the ABC’s standards. ACMA Investigation Report—Q&A broadcast by ABC TV on 17 August 2015 19 of 18

Investigation Report No. BI-123

Details

Download

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

Support