Investig… · Web viewThe perspectives presented in the program included the views of Senator...

Investigation report no. BI-311Summary

Broadcaster Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Station ABC 1

Type of service National broadcasting—television

Name of program Four Corners

Date of broadcast 3 April 2017

Relevant code ABC Code of Practice 2011 (revised in 2016)

Date Finalised 6 June 2017

Decision No breach of Standard 4.1 [impartiality]

No breach of Standard 5.8 [secret recordings]

BackgroundIn April 2017, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) commenced an investigation under section 151 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (the BSA) into an episode of Four Corners titled ‘Please Explain’ (the program).

The program was broadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) on 3 April 2017 at 8.30 pm and featured a report on the activities of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party (One Nation).

The ACMA received two complaints alleging that the program broadcast secretly-recorded telephone conversations. One of the complainants (Complainant A) also alleged that the program lacked impartiality.

The ACMA has investigated the ABC’s compliance with Standard 4.1 [impartiality] and Standard 5.8 [secret recordings] of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (revised in 2016) (the Code).

One of the complainants (Complainant B) also alleged a breach of Standard 6 [privacy]. The complainant did not expressly raise this issue in their initial complaint to the ABC, so the ACMA has decided not to pursue this aspect of the complaint.

Both complaints raised concerns about whether the ABC breached other legislation by broadcasting secretly-recorded telephone conversations. The ACMA does not have jurisdiction to investigate that matter. In accordance with the BSA, the scope of the ACMA’s investigation is limited to matters under the Code.

The programFour Corners is described as:

Australia’s premier television current affairs program. It has been part of the national story since August 1961, exposing scandals, triggering inquiries, firing debate, confronting taboos and interpreting fads, trends and sub-cultures.1

Four Corners is broadcast on Mondays at 8.30 pm and is presented as an investigative journalism/current affairs documentary program that explores a single issue of public importance each week. The program broadcast on 3 April 2017, titled ‘Please Explain’, examined the activities of One Nation following the federal election in July 2016 and in the lead up to the Western Australian election in March 2017. The ABC’s website describes the report:

Four Corners will reveal the brutal backroom politics ripping into Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party […] Reporter Caro Meldrum-Hanna investigates the party’s inner workings and explores how former supporters have been left disenchanted.2

The program considered serious allegations made against Senator Hanson and her chief of staff, Mr James Ashby, by ex-staff members, supporters and candidates of One Nation. The program examined the treatment of supporters and candidates, political donations, the purchase and use of a light plane, withdrawal of support from former One Nation Senator, Mr Rod Culleton, and dealings with other political parties.

1 http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/about/, accessed on 10 May 2017.2 http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2017/04/03/4645233.htm, accessed on 10 May 2017.

ACMA Investigation report— Four Corners broadcast on ABC 1 on 3 April 2017 2 of 32

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2017/04/03/4645233.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/about/

The program included numerous interviews, archive footage, excerpts from emails and text messages, as well as two secretly-recorded telephone conversations provided to the ABC by third parties.

A transcript of the program is at Attachment A.

Assessment and submissionsWhen 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’ 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.3

Once the ACMA has ascertained the meaning of the material that was broadcast, it then assesses compliance with the Code.

This investigation has taken into account the complaints (at Attachment B) and submissions from the broadcaster (at Attachment C). Other sources are identified in this report where relevant.

Issue 1: Impartiality

Relevant Code provisions 4. Impartiality and diversity of perspectives 4.1 Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.

The Code requires interpretation and application of Standard 4.1 in accordance with the relevant principles, which include the following:

Principles: The ABC has a statutory duty to ensure that the gathering and presentation of news and information is impartial according to the recognised standards of objective journalism.

[…]

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• 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.

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


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.

FindingThe ABC did not breach Standard 4.1 of the Code.

ReasonsTo assess compliance, the ACMA has considered the following:

contextual factors

the ABC’s hallmarks for 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.

Complainant A submitted that the ABC’s broadcast was ‘vile hatred’ directed at Senator Hanson and an attempt to ‘destroy’ her. Complainant A objected to the program on the basis that it was a ‘taxpayer funded attack’ and questioned the program’s motivations, and viewed it as a ‘one sided “expose”’.

The ABC responded to Complainant A:

[…] the program presented a range of principal relevant perspectives as well as documentary evidence in support of claims made by interviewees. The perspectives presented in the program included the views of Senator Malcolm Roberts, who voiced his strong support for both the One Nation Party and Senator Hanson personally, as well as the views of a number of former party workers and candidates who had become disenchanted with the party and its leader. The program has explained that it sought interviews with Senator Hanson and Mr Ashby, but these were declined, and that Senator Hanson and Mr Ashby also declined to respond to the program’s written questions. Having carefully reviewed the program, we are satisfied that it complied with the ABC’s impartiality standards.

Contextual factors

Assessing impartiality requires consideration of the context and particular circumstances of a broadcast.

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.

The context for the program of 3 April 2017 was established in the presenter’s opening statements:


Welcome to Four Corners. Nine months ago, Pauline Hanson was riding high. Elected to the Senate, along with three of her One Nation colleagues, she created out of thin air a powerful new block on the crossbenches of the fractious upper house. It was an extraordinary comeback for a woman whose first venture into politics more than twenty years ago ended in ignominy, dumped from parliament, and jailed after a conviction for electoral fraud that was later overturned on appeal. Last month, in the Western Australian State election, Hanson's One Nation Party won three upper house seats but polled far lower than predicted. Bitter party infighting in Western Australia and Queensland has seen former One Nation powerbrokers and disgruntled candidates come forth to condemn the woman they'd supported and pinned their hopes on. It was this kind of internal division that helped pull One Nation apart in the late 1990s. And just like 20 years ago there are claims that a powerful advisor has too much sway over Pauline Hanson - her chief of staff James Ashby. So, are the wheels coming off the One Nation wagon? Reporter Caro Meldrum-Hanna ventures inside the party for tonight's report.

These comments would have made it clear to the ordinary reasonable viewer that the intention of the program was to explore the recent history of One Nation and the viewpoints and experiences of former staff, supporters and candidates who had come forward to make allegations about the party and its leaders.

The program commenced with interviews with One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts defending One Nation and One Nation supporters, providing positive commentary about the party and its leaders. It then considered the allegations made in some detail.

The program made clear that Senator Hanson and Mr Ashby had been invited to participate in the program but had declined to do so. The ordinary reasonable viewer would have understood that, because of their decision not to be involved in the program, the ABC focussed on the information provided by the program’s participants and was restrained in its ability to present information that contradicted participant claims.

The program concluded with the reporter’s statement about Senator Hanson:

She leaves behind a lot of unanswered questions. It’s now up to Pauline Hanson – to please explain.

In the context of a report examining allegations about a political party, it would be expected that the allegations would be covered in some detail, and that the reporter and presenter would be questioning, and at times sceptical, in their interviewing style and analysis of issues. It would also be expected that the reporter would test the credibility of interviewees by examining evidence that may corroborate or challenge their claims.

In this respect, the ACMA notes that current affairs programs often take a critical stance when presenting issues or controversies. Whether or not a breach has occurred will depend on the themes of the program, any editorial comment, the overall presentation of the story and the circumstances in which the program was prepared and broadcast.

The ABC is entitled to explore controversial issues that are newsworthy and of public interest, as long as the hallmarks of impartiality are met. Namely, that there is 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 ACMA has considered the program against these hallmarks, as set out below.

A balance that follows the weight of evidence

In examining the claims made by former staff members, supporters and candidates of One Nation, the program presented a number of principal relevant perspectives. The people making the allegations in the program were clearly identified and were able to present their


viewpoints in some detail, as well as their personal and direct experiences of the party’s activities. Their assertions were tested within the program through the examination of material such as emails, text messages, documents and candidate application forms.

The decision of Senator Hanson and Mr Ashby not to participate in the program is a relevant circumstance to take into account when assessing whether the program followed the weight of evidence. Given their decisions not to participate, it was not unreasonable that the program concentrated on the views of persons participating in the program.

From the interview with Senator Roberts, viewers would have understood from the program that there were opposing views on the performance and conduct of One Nation and its leaders.

In light of these matters, the ACMA considers that the program achieved a balance that follows the weight of evidence.

Fair treatment

No unfair treatment was apparent in the manner in which the ABC represented the views of persons interviewed in the program. All interviewees in the broadcast appeared to give their point of view freely and their views were reproduced in context without interruption or apparent misrepresentation.

The reporter maintained a generally neutral but questioning tone throughout the program and did not use unduly emotive or colourful language. The ACMA considers that the language and tone of the reporter and presenter did not convey any prejudgement, nor did it appear to indicate any bias on the part of the reporter or presenter. The emphasis and treatment of the issues did not appear to be a reflection of the personal views of the reporter, presenter or the ABC. Further, the issues examined were newsworthy.

The program broadcast extracts of telephone conversations which involved Senator Hanson and Mr Ashby. The ABC did not record the conversations. The ACMA understands that these telephone conversations were recorded without Senator Hanson’s or Mr Ashby’s knowledge and that they did not give permission for the ABC to broadcast extracts of the recordings. The ACMA considers that the ABC’s broadcast of extracts of these recordings did not compromise the fair treatment of the issues examined in the program, given that the recordings were presented as evidence of the claims of the interviewees. These claims were highly newsworthy matters at the time of the broadcast.

There were repeated attempts to gain Senator Hanson’s and Mr Ashby’s participation in the program to respond to and test the allegations being made. Four Corners had requested an interview with Senator Hanson for five weeks, provided her with the opportunity to respond to written questions, and, on two occasions, the reporter approached Senator Hanson on camera.

In Western Australia at a press conference during the One Nation campaign, the reporter asked Senator Hanson why people should vote for her, given the controversy in her party. Senator Hanson’s response on camera was shown without any interruptions or editing.

The reporter was also shown to approach Senator Hanson at the end of media interviews toward the end of the program. The reporter introduced herself as being from Four Corners and asked for some time for an interview while she was in Perth, which Senator Hanson declined on camera.

The presenter again, at the close of the program, noted both Senator Hanson and Mr Ashby declined requests for interviews and written questions.


In all the circumstances of the broadcast, the ACMA considers the program demonstrated fair treatment of the subject matter and persons involved considering the type, subject and nature of the content, and the likely audience’s expectations of the content.

Open-mindedness

While the program featured many viewpoints that were critical of One Nation, the program also included views in support of One Nation and its leaders and policies. As outlined in the Code’s Principles, impartiality does not require that every perspective receives equal time, nor that every facet of every argument is presented. Further, a program that presents a perspective that is opposed by a particular person or group is not inherently partial.

The presenter’s sign off noted there were ‘a lot of unanswered questions’ and it was up to Senator Hanson and One Nation to respond to the claims. This would have indicated to the viewer that the allegations of the interviewees were being presented as allegations which had not been proven or responded to, and that the program was not seeking to provide a definitive view on the topics.

The ACMA considers that opposing viewpoints were explored in sufficient depth to ensure that viewers were free to make up their own minds on the allegations made.

The ACMA considers that the program met the hallmark of open-mindedness.

Opportunities over time for principal relevant perspectives on matters of contention to be expressed

Senator Hanson and Mr Ashby were afforded the opportunity to participate in the program - they were invited to participate in interviews, but these invitations were declined. Senator Hanson’s point of view was considered on some of the issues raised, and the views of One Nation were represented on the program by Senator Roberts, together with Queensland supporters, who voiced strong support for both the One Nation Party and Senator Hanson personally.

In addition to the invitations extended to Senator Hanson and Mr Ashby to participate in the program, they were also invited to respond to written questions about matters raised in the program. This invitation was also declined. More broadly, the ACMA notes that Senator Hanson has had the opportunity to appear on other ABC programs to express her views and specifically respond to the issues raised in the program.

In this context, the ACMA considers that the ABC has provided opportunities, within the program and over time, for the expression of principal relevant perspectives on matters of contention relevant to One Nation and its leadership and policies.

In light of the above, the ACMA is satisfied that the hallmarks of impartiality were met in the context of the program.

Accordingly, the ABC did not breach Standard 4.1 of the Code.

Issue 2: Fair and honest dealing

Relevant Code provisions5.8 Secret recording and other types of deception

Secret recording devices, misrepresentation or other types of deception must not be used to obtain or seek information, audio, pictures or an agreement to participate except where:


(a) justified in the public interest and the material cannot reasonably be obtained by any other means; or

(b) consent is obtained from the subject or identities are effectively obscured; or(c) the deception is integral to an artistic work.

In all cases, the potential for harm must be taken into consideration.

The Code’s relevant principles include the following:

Principles: Fair and honest dealing is essential to maintaining trust with audiences and with those who participate in or are otherwise directly affected by ABC content. In rare circumstances, deception or a breach of an undertaking may be justified. Because of the potential damage to trust, deception or breach of an undertaking must be explained openly afterwards unless there are compelling reasons not to do so.

FindingThe ABC did not breach Standard 5.8 of the Code.

Reasons

Complainant B submitted:

It is a low blow, with respect, portraying [Pauline Hanson and James Ashby] as deceptive and overbearing. The broadcast was unfair in that [Pauline Hanson and James Ashby] had every reason to expect they were having private conversations. They made it clear in the program they had no wish to speak to the ABC and it follows they would not want telephone conversations broadcast without their prior approval.

The first recording was a telephone conversation between Mr Ashby and a group of Queensland candidates which was broadcast at 23 minutes and 7 seconds into the program. The second telephone conversation between former Senator Rod Culleton and Senator Hanson was broadcast at 29 minutes and 16 seconds.

The broadcaster responded to Complainant B with reference to Standard 5.8 in the Code, and Standard 5.9 in the ABC’s Editorial Policy:

Standard 5.8 is not relevant to the Four Corners program, 'Please Explain', as the ABC did not use secret recording devices or deception to obtain the secretly recorded calls. Standard 5.9 does apply because the ABC decided to broadcast calls that had been secretly recorded by third parties.

I have confirmed that, in keeping with standard 5.9, Four Corners obtained approval from an appropriately senior ABC person designated for the purpose prior to broadcasting the calls that had been secretly recorded by third parties, and that ABC Legal was consulted before the decision to approve was made.

Standard 5.9 forms part of the Editorial Policy on Fair and Honest Dealing4, and it is not in the Code:

Mandatory referral5.9 An appropriately senior ABC person designated for the purpose must approve in advance, having consulted ABC Legal, any proposal:

4 https://edpols.abc.net.au/policies/5-fair-and-honest-dealing/, accessed on 8 May 2017.


https://edpols.abc.net.au/policies/5-fair-and-honest-dealing/

(a) to use secret recording during the production of content commissioned, produced or co-produced by the ABC; […]

The ABC has informed the ACMA that designated persons considering proposals referred under Standard 5.9 typically have regard to considerations of the kind set out in Standard 5.8. As Standard 5.9 is contained in the ABC’s Editorial Policy and not in the Code, the ACMA’s investigation is limited to whether the program breached Standard 5.8 of the Code.

The operation of Standard 5.8 and its relationship with Standard 5.9 is open to interpretation. The ACMA accepts the ABC’s submissions that:

Standard 5.8 regulates the circumstances in which the ABC itself may use secret recording devices; and

Standard 5.9 regulates the use of secret recordings by the ABC of (irrespective of who obtained them).

Viewed this way, Standard 5.8 does not restrict the ABC’s use of material obtained and supplied by an independent third party. Indeed, Standard 5.8 would not apply in the circumstances complained of and a ‘no breach’ finding would, necessarily, follow.

The ACMA notes that the same finding would follow, even if Standard 5.8 did apply. That is because there is a clear public interest in broadcasting material alleged to show misconduct by people pursuing or occupying public office or by those working to support people who do. Even if the recordings used here were secretly obtained by third parties, and even if Standard 5.8 constrained the ABC’s use of those recordings, their use was justified in the public interest.

For these reasons, the ACMA finds that the ABC did not breach Standard 5.8.


DecisionThe Australian Communications and Media Authority determines for the above reasons that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, in relation to the broadcast of Four Corners ‘Please Explain’ on 3 April 2017:

did not breach Standard 4.1

did not breach Standard 5.8

of its Code of Practice 2011 (revised in 2016).

Signed for and on behalf of the Australian Communications and Media Authority by:

Signature of Member: ..........................................................................................................

Name (please print): ............................................................................................................

Signature of Member/General Manager:..............................................................................

Name (please print): ............................................................................................................

Dated: ..................................................................................................................................


Attachment A Transcript of Four Corners ‘Please Explain’, broadcast on ABC 1 on 3 April 2017

Sarah Ferguson: Welcome to Four Corners. Nine months ago, Pauline Hanson was riding high. Elected to the Senate, along with three of her One Nation colleagues, she created out of thin air a powerful new block on the crossbenches of the fractious upper house. It was an extraordinary comeback for a woman whose first venture into politics more than twenty years ago ended in ignominy, dumped from parliament, and jailed after a conviction for electoral fraud that was later overturned on appeal. Last month, in the Western Australian State election, Hanson's One Nation Party won three upper house seats but polled far lower than predicted. Bitter party infighting in Western Australia and Queensland has seen former One Nation powerbrokers and disgruntled candidates come forth to condemn the woman they'd supported and pinned their hopes on. It was this kind of internal division that helped pull One Nation apart in the late 1990s. And just like 20 years ago there are claims that a powerful advisor has too much sway over Pauline Hanson - her chief of staff James Ashby. So, are the wheels coming off the One Nation wagon? Reporter Caro Meldrum-Hanna ventures inside the party for tonight's report.

[‘Please Explain’ report plays]

Caro Meldrum-Hanna (CMH) (Voice over): We're on our way to the remote country town of Cunnamulla, 800 kilometres out of Brisbane.

CMH: Senator Roberts, hello!

Malcolm Roberts (MR): How are you?

CMH: Very well. Thank you. How's your tour going?

MR: Fantastic. It's always great to be out in the bush, it's really refreshing.

CMH (Voice over): We're joining One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts on his whistle-stop tour of South West Queensland.

CMH: Are you getting a warm reception?

MR: Oh yeah very, very warm yeah.

CMH: You say very warm, I mean what are, what are you actually hearing? What are people saying to you? What's the body language?

MR: Thank goodness someone is speaking up at last for the bush, thank goodness someone is speaking up for Queensland. We haven't had this since Joh was around. What happens at the moment is we’ve got latte sippers up in Brisbane and Canberra who are telling people up here - they're basically glorified hippies who've got regulatory powers now - and they're telling the farmers what they can and can't do with their land, and they haven't got a clue.

CMH (Voice over): The Senator's first stop is at the town's coffee shop for a meeting with the local Mayor, Lindsay Godfrey.

Lindsay Godfrey (LG): So if I could start on energy -


MR: You know, everyone has started on energy - every single Councillor...

LG: Well... well it's very frustrating for us. The cost of electricity is an enormous impediment to businesses growing.

CMH (Voice over): A walk through town paints a bleak picture. It's lunchtime and the streets are empty. A dire lack of jobs and business opportunity is killing Queensland's regional areas. Many of the shops here have closed down, several boarded up. Malcolm Roberts blames the National Party for letting its people down.

MR: The National Party has been stifled by the Liberal Party and they've basically become, they've both drifted over towards the Greens because the Liberals have been scared of calling the Greens out, and the Greens are the most destructive force in Australian politics.

CMH (Voice over): An hour's drive east, Senator Malcolm Roberts and local One Nation candidate Sharon Lohse are meeting with a small group of graziers.

MR: I've come out to listen to what you guys have to say, what are your problems?

CMH (Voice over): They share a common frustration - a sense of political correctness gone mad.

Grazier: Like bah bah black sheep everyone grew up with that. Now they're not allowed to bloody say it in schools because it's bah bah rainbow sheep, politically correct, it's bullshit!

MR: Hahaha

CMH: What are your beliefs?

CMH (Voice over): They also believe climate change isn't real.

Jack Paskett (JP): I don't think there is any climate change really.

CMH: So, when you see scientists on the television, you read the newspapers that climate change is being caused by humans, what do you think?

JP: Oh, I don't think there's that much damage like, myself, but they say that ‘cos they've got to keep their job.

MR: Hahahaha! He's aware of what's going on, good on you.

CMH: Malcolm this must be music to your ears?

MR: No, I've known this for a long time. Farmers close to Brisbane who have been on the land for 60 years, they know it's just cyclical.

We bring a fearlessness. We don't care what people think. We don't care about being slammed by the Greens and all the others, we just speak the facts.

CMH (Voice over): Malcolm Roberts is a former coal mining executive. He's one of Australia's leading climate change deniers.

CMH: What do your views on climate change? How are they going to help the people of Australia?

MR: It'll focus people on getting rid of the nonsense that is being driven by the so-called climate scam, and it'll get us back to being realistic because we don't need solar, we don't need wind. Coal is essential for the future.


CMH (Voice over): Another of One Nation's key policies is to ban the immigration of all Muslim people to Australia.

MR: Islam is on everyone's lips. They're going after the Jewish people. They're going after the Christian people. And they're the only ones who have a policy of damage or harm to people who are not of their ideology.

CMH: Do they?

MR: Yes. They've said it. A lot of their senior people have said that and that's supposedly what they do with people who are not of their belief.

CMH (Voice over): At the local pub in St George, One Nation's policies are striking a chord.

Patron 1: What happened to the politics in America is coming to this country, people are sick and tired of the major parties.

CMH: So, the Trump phenomenon?

Patron 1: Yes.

CMH: It’s coming here?

Patron 1: Exactly. Everyone's had enough.

Patron 2: We don't know anyone else to vote for.

Patron 3: What else have you got to vote for? Fucking Liberals?

Patron 2: And she's hot. She's a hot red head.

Patron 3: Aw, she’s a red head. Red heads, they've always got your vote, haven't they?

CMH: What is it about her? Why is she doing a good job?

Patron 4: Keeping all the Mu-immigrants out of Australia, I think we've got enough.

Patron 5: She's the only one that can pull Australia back to being Australia.

CMH: Okay good, what is… what’s real Australia?

Patron 5: Get rid of the migrants, the boat people, and just have us.

CMH: Who are the migrants?

Patron 5: ISIS and the Pakistanians [sic].

Patron 6: Keeping Australia Australian, we've got enough people.

CMH: No more?

Patron 6: No, no more.

CMH: Okay.

CMH (Voice over): One Nation's supporters have strong views. So do some of the party's endorsed candidates.

CMH: Endorsed candidates have said such things as: single mums are too lazy to attract and hold a mate, gays should be treated as patients. What about the comment that the gay community uses Nazi-style mind control?

MR: Well if you're talking about propaganda the ABC also uses Nazi-style mind control.


CMH: Could you answer that question for me, with respect, the comment that the gay community uses Nazi-style mind control?

MR: Well I'm guessing that person's referring to some elements of the gay community doing that in terms of propaganda. The ABC uses Nazi-style mind control games.

CMH: The ABC uses Nazi-style...

MR: Yes, yes.

CMH: ...mind control games? What's your evidence for that?

MR: Um for example carbon dioxide has been, whenever we talk about carbon dioxide on the ABC um you see on the news broadcast billowing steam pouring out, giving people the impression that carbon dioxide is both um colourful and it's also huge in volume when it's less than 0.04%.

CMH (Voice over): Malcolm Roberts only got 77 first-preference votes at the July 2016 Federal election. He managed to get in to parliament, thanks to the massive number of votes Pauline Hanson's One Nation got in her home state of Queensland.

MR: She's got courage, she's got strength of character, she's got complete integrity, she says what she thinks and she'll tackle anyone in the way and she'll do what's right for the country.

CMH: At the July 2016 Federal election Pauline Hanson surprised everyone. With One Nation winning four Senate seats.

Person in background in footage: We love ya, Australia loves ya.

Pauline Hanson (PH) in footage: Saraya, come on, come over here.

CMH (Voice over): By her side was her marketing manager, Saraya Beric.

PH in footage: I will tell everyone without these two guys standing beside me for the last year and a half, I would not be where I am today.

CMH (Voice over): Nine months on from their electoral success, Saraya Beric has a very different story to tell. About the realities inside One Nation.

CMH: Do you feel betrayed?

Saraya Beric (SB): Yes. Because you work so hard and you know you do the right thing and then people don't do the right thing by you.

CMH: Who, what has betrayed you?

SB: I think I'm most disappointed in Pauline actually.

CMH (Voice over): Saraya Beric isn't alone.

Ian Nelson (IN): A political party is supposed to be transparent, democratic, um inclusive and the party at the moment is not any of those things.

CMH: What is it?

IN: It's a dictatorship. It's absolute brutal dictatorship. Brutal.

CMH: Up until late 2016, Ian Nelson and Saraya Beric were two of the most powerful people inside One Nation. Saraya Beric was the party's social media and marketing manager. Pauline Hanson's devoted staffer.


PH in footage: Special thanks to Ian Nelson for never giving up and asking me to come back and lead the party.

CMH (Voice over): Ian Nelson, a 20-year party veteran was the State President, and also the Treasurer. He resurrected Pauline Hanson in 2014 and returned her to politics. But after her election success, both he and Saraya Beric were left without a job. The losers of a bitter internal power struggle that's now split One Nation.

CMH: Why are you no longer working for One Nation?

IN: Basically, James Ashby. Two words, James Ashby. He couldn't have me around, I was warned, I was warned months before it happened, so James Ashby couldn't have me around and he just poisoned Pauline against me.

SB: I'm very disappointed in the person he turned out to be.

James Ashby (JA) in footage: Well done.

PH in footage: I couldn’t have done it without you.

CMH (Voice over): James Ashby seen here on election night, became Pauline Hanson's right hand man very quickly. To understand his meteoric rise, you have to go back to late 2014. When Ian Nelson says James Ashby rang him out of the blue, with an irresistible offer: Cut price professional printing for Federal and State election campaigns for the entire party.

CMH: Did you run any checks or...

IN: No.

CMH: On who James Ashby was?

IN: No, no. Everybody could blame me for that, no I didn't, I just thought what a kind offer, I've had you know, I’ve had offers similar but this one was a bit funny.

CMH (Voice over): A quick online search would have revealed James Ashby is no stranger to controversy. In 2012, he accused his then boss, Speaker of the House, Peter Slipper, of sexual harassment. Ultimately James Ashby didn't pursue the case, but it was one of the ugliest political scandals in recent times.

IN: I was there to watch Pauline's back and, when I had time I was going to vet people, before they get too close to Pauline but I absolutely failed miserably on that one.

CMH: You failed to vet James Ashby?

IN: Yeah. Had I have known what I know today, there was no way I would've put him, let him anywhere near her.

CMH (Voice over): In early 2015, James Ashby was appointed to the party's executive.

SB: James, he was looking at different ways to promote Pauline and the party and he came up with the idea of getting an aeroplane, a little plane that she could get around logistically, and you know he said the media will go for it, ‘cause it was a bit of a gimmick and I actually agreed with him.

PH in footage: We’re heading down to Griffith. I’m with James, say hi James.

JA in footage: Hi.


CMH (Voice over): How the party managed to pay for the extravagant purchase has remained shrouded in secrecy.

JA in footage: Tracking radial of 210…

PH in footage: We have never received huge donations from anyone in all the time. Our donations come from the small people.

CMH (Voice over): One of the party's biggest recent donors is wealthy Victorian property developer, the director of Vicland Corporation, Bill McNee. Four Corners has obtained emails revealing how he contacted One Nation offering financial support. One Nation’s head office responded in February 2015.

[Visual of text of email dated 27th February 2015 on screen]

‘Pauline ... would like to meet with you if you are still able to travel to QLD. May I also ask for your phone number to pass on to Pauline?'

Bill McNee wrote back.

[Visual of text of email dated 27th February 2015 on screen]

'I would be delighted ... I would like to become a major financial supporter of your party...Let me know when suits for me to come up and meet with you all.’

Bill McNee followed up again two weeks later, keen to meet:

[Visual of text of email dated 16 March 2015 on screen]

‘Sorry to be pushy...I'm so eager to offer support to a party that has the courage to stand up for ordinary Australians and give us a voice.’

They met one month later on the 11th of April 2015 at Pauline Hanson's home for a roast dinner. Ian Nelson was there.

CMH: Did James Ashby ask Bill McNee for a plane?

IN: He just kept saying I’m a pilot you know we should be flying Pauline around and then Bill said, 'Well, we'll have to get you a plane then'. That's how that conversation went.

CMH (Voice over): Two days later, James Ashby wrote this text message to a party official:

[Visual of text message dated 13 April 2015 on screen]

‘We need to talk to Bill about funding it.’

The official responded.

[Visual of text message dated 15 April 2015 on screen]

‘We had a good chat with Bill. I think Pauline's going to go for the plane.’

Eight days later, donor Bill McNee sent this email to Pauline Hanson and James Ashby:

[Visual of text of email dated 13 May 2015 on screen]

‘James we will sort out the plane tomorrow as well.’

CMH: And after that message was sent between James Ashby and Bill McNee did a plane arrive?

IN: Yes, very shortly afterwards, brand new Jabiru.

CMH: How was that funded - the purchase of the plane?


IN: Well, after Bill McNee said, 'Yes we'll have to get you a plane', to my understanding that means, well all right, I'll buy you a plane. But as it turns out, Bill McNee didn't buy the plane, but as I understand it, he transferred the funds to James Ashby, not the Party, not Pauline, but to James Ashby.

CMH (Voice over): Bill McNee has denied funding the purchase of the plane. He's told Four Corners:

[Visual of text on screen]

‘There has been no financial support or assistance to any political party outside what is publicly disclosed and already well known.’

Ian Nelson, the party's state treasurer, says he asked Pauline Hanson to explain how the purchase of the plane had been funded.

IN: I said, ‘Where's the plane, there's no evidence of it anywhere, whose plane is it?’ and she said, ‘It's my plane’, I said ‘Fine, okay, well then, you've got to declare it’ and she said, 'No, don't worry about it, don't worry about it'. I said 'Well, did Bill McNee buy that plane for the party, did he buy it for you, or did he buy it for James Ashby?’, and she just looked at me and walked away.

CMH (Voice over): Four Corners has obtained a copy of these 2015 insurance documents for the Jabiru plane. They confirm the plane was insured in James Ashby's name. It's listed purpose? Business.

CMH: What is the primary purpose or use of that plane?

IN: For the One Nation Party. To ferry Pauline around, to the little towns and properties.

CMH: Was that ‘gift’ declared?

IN: No.

CMH: Under the rules, should that have been disclosed?

IN: If I did it, yes I would've. If I'd had anything to do with the transaction. I said, 'Yes disclose it for heaven's sakes’, because it's been used to ferry Pauline Hanson around the state, so it's really a party matter, so it should've been disclosed.

CMH (Voice over): The acquisition of the plane wasn't the only thing to worry party Treasurer Ian Nelson. In 2015, Bill McNee's company, Vicland Business, made donations totalling almost $70,000 to One Nation. When it came time to declare them, Ian Nelson says James Ashby rang him, questioning the way he'd declared the donations to the Queensland Electoral Commission.

IN: You know, he said this is confidential, all these matters are confidential and ah they're for our business only and I said ‘No, that's not quite right, the rules and regulations state that we have to declare any amount of money over a thousand dollars, we have to declare it’, and he said ‘Well can't you just put 'anonymous donor'?’ And I said, ‘No, you can't do that, I'll end up in jail.’

CMH: To be clear, James Ashby asked you to list a donor as anonymous instead of declaring the name?

IN: Yes. Yeah.


CMH: Rather than disclosing who it is, in contravention . . .

IN: In contravention of all the rules and regulations, yes. Later on, Pauline had a bit of a go at me about the same thing. I said, 'You've got to declare everything', and she just kept calling me an obstructionist, you know, 'Why are you doing it like this?' They just don't understand, and now they're running a party, so God help them all.

CMH (Voice over): While working alongside James Ashby, party Secretary, Saraya Beric began to receive complaints from candidates regarding his printing business.

CMH: What were the complaints you were receiving?

SB: Well that James had asked candidates to buy a huge quantity of election signs and um these candidates just couldn't afford it.

CMH: Did it make you uncomfortable that you were being asked to pay?

Elise Cottam (EC): It did because it, there's no election yet, so what's the purpose of collecting all this money now? Why is it so important now?

CMH (Voice over): Elise Cottam is one of many who've found being a One Nation candidate is a costly exercise. Four Corners has obtained a copy of One Nation's Queensland candidate application form. It must be signed by every candidate, most of them battlers on low incomes, before they can run for the party. It lists two standard fees. But then there's this clause:

[Visual of clause text on screen]

'The purchase of promotional material such as business cards, corflutes and other election material as decided by the party....'

There was a catch. Candidates have told us the only printing business they were allowed to use was James Ashby's.

EC: I was asked to pay for campaign equipment, like campaign paraphernalia, corflutes, you know, flyers, business cards, banners. It came to around $3,500; I wasn't prepared to pay that.

CMH: $3,500 for printed material?

EC: Yeah, yep.

CMH: How were you meant to pay for that?

EC: Out of our own pocket.

CMH (Voice over): Elise Cottam found a local printer, her son-in-law, to produce the same material for $1,500 less. She was disendorsed before she could suggest the cheaper alternative.

CMH: What did the letter say?

EC: Just that I didn't comply with the paperwork and I hadn't provided any funds and that I was no longer required... as a candidate.

CMH (Voice over): Elise Cottam is one of many candidates who've told Four Corners they felt pressured to buy large amounts of printing from James Ashby.


IN: Multiple candidates, being pressured all the time to buy the products from Ashby, the corflutes and the flyers had to come from Ashby, nobody else, and there was significant amounts of money being talked about and I mean they had to find this money.

CMH (Voice over): There are other concerns about James Ashby's conduct inside the party. Of candidates feeling controlled and intimidated once they've been brought inside the One Nation tent.

JA (Phone recording): G’day everyone. How are yas?

Candidates (Phone recording): Yeah good. Thanks.

CMH (Voice over): Four Corners has been leaked this secretly-recorded phone hook-up between James Ashby and a group of Queensland candidates.

JA (Phone recording): I don't give a rat's ass what you think of me. I'm here to do a job, that job is to get you elected, and get the party into a position where we are either in opposition or in government.

CMH (Voice over): It's January 2017 and James Ashby is laying down the law after a string of scandals in the media - Candidates caught making offensive comments online.

JA (Phone recording): Pauline's watching your pages whether you like it or not. She watches from afar, and believe it or not we also have everybody in the office there monitoring your pages as well. And if shit hits the fan - don't speak to media. Speak to us first.

CMH (Voice over): James Ashby goes on to reveal he's been privately speaking with the Queensland Liberal National Party, striking a private agreement, before the State election has even been called.

JA (Phone recording): I got a phone call this morning, from the chief of staff for Tim Nicholls. I have an agreement with the Liberal National Party, I've made one commitment to them, one agreement. And I'll be upfront with you. I've made a commitment that we will not go out there and slag them for the sake of slagging them. I also kindly reminded him that if they choose to change that agreement, we have plenty of ammunition on their candidates as well. Which pulled his head in a little bit.

SB: James Ashby actually told me he had dirt files on politicians.

CMH: What are dirt files?

SB: So, I guessed files or folders where he's kept notes on politicians in parliament, maybe information that they don't want getting out.

CMH: How would you characterise the leadership of the Party?

IN: Sick. Um, lacking empathy.

CMH: I'm going to put the phrase to you - it was said to me from someone within the party that Pauline Hanson's One Nation party is a people burner, would you agree?

IN: That's a pretty appropriate thing to say now. I would. She burns people, that's for sure, when she's finished with 'em or doesn't need 'em anymore and they've done their job. Pst- off you go!


CMH (Voice over): It's early morning in Canberra. On the outskirts of town at a no-frills motel a former One Nation Senator is hatching a bold plan. Rod Culleton and his trusty chief of staff, Margaret Menzel, are plotting their latest attempt to get reinstated to parliament.

Rod Culleton (RC): This is going to be rock’n’roll. Haha this is party time. This has got more spark than New Year’s Eve at Sydney Harbour Bridge.

CMH (Voice over): Rod Culleton was recruited in to politics in early 2016. Handpicked for the One Nation party by Pauline Hanson. At the time, he was embroiled in private legal battles, including a charge for larceny.

CMH: Was Senator Hanson aware of your ‘troubles’?

RC: Absolutely.

CMH: Your legal troubles before running?

RC: Yeah.

Margaret Menzel (MM): No question.

RC: Yeah because I'd spoken to Pauline before I went into Parliament, and I said to her that I have these scars, these battle scars.

CMH: And her response?

RC: That's fine, so we'll support it and work through it.

RC in footage: I quit One Nation…

CMH (Voice over): But in December 2016 Rod Culleton quit One Nation…

PH in footage of television interview: He wasn’t interested, he was too busy running around the place…

CMH (Voice over): ..sparking this ugly..

PH in footage of television interview: He was always late…

CMH (Voice over): ...and very public tirade from Pauline Hanson.

PH in footage: He was demanding, he was over the top. He's ego driven and he loves the media. Rod was a pain in my backside to tell you the truth. I am glad to see the back of him… Merry Christmas everyone. Thankyou.

CMH (Voice over): Four weeks later, in January 2017, Rod Culleton - now an Independent Senator - was sacked from Parliament altogether.

RC in footage: I'm very proud to have been a senator. I'm not a bankrupt, I will appeal.

PH in footage: Am I happy about the demise of Rod Culleton? No. I'm not.

CMH (Voice over): Pauline Hanson told Australia she didn't know about Rod Culleton's legal woes when she selected him to join the party.

Interviewer in footage: Were you aware of his financial woes when you put him on your team?

PH in footage: No not at all, I had no idea. I didn't know about the larceny charge and the conviction that was there.


CMH (Voice over): But Four Corners has obtained a series of emails suggesting the opposite. In this April 2016 email... Pauline Hanson writes to her lawyer about Rod Culleton's legal issues:

[Visual of email text dated 6 April 2016 on screen]

‘Hi Danny, Thanks for talking to Rod yesterday... Rod is very happy for you to work for him. He needs to have this squashed as soon as possible. I am waiting for this to be cleared up before I endorse him officially for the WA Senate.’

Other emails show detailed information about the larceny charge and conviction; the court attendance notice; and police fact sheet being sent to Pauline Hanson's lawyer. And an email about a sworn affidavit, with Rod Culleton noting his appreciation for Pauline Hanson's assistance in April 2016. But when news of Rod Culleton's private legal affairs broke in the media, the support he once enjoyed from his leader quickly evaporated.

RC in footage: You seem to be getting angry with me, Pauline.

CMH (Voice over): …prompting him to secretly record this phone conversation with Pauline Hanson.

PH in footage: You've been in politics for what six months? I've been doing it for 20 years. Don't tell me how to run politics and how the system works. I think I know a little bit more than what you do... Go and read your constitution section 44(ii) and it states that if you have a criminal conviction more than 12 months sentence.

I haven't done that Rod. You did it before you were actually standing. Now they've caught up with you over this. That is the facts. Right? Now don't try and blame me.

RC in footage: I'm not blaming you, I'm not blaming you. But I don't seem to be getting support from you in a sense now that you're wanting me to stand down.

PH in footage: Rod you have a think about, get your legal advice ok? I'll leave it up to you. I'll see you at parliament next week.

RC in footage: Bye.

CMH (Voice over): Today the former One Nation loyalists tell me, when it comes to Pauline Hanson's One Nation, they're persona non-grata.

RC: Yeah it um cuts deep to be honest, so. That's it. Yeah, I get better respect from a sheep dog.

MM: Definitely.

RC: Definitely.

MM: Better loyalty too.

Marye Daniels (MD): See this? Pauline Hanson's One Nation, Volunteer of the Year 2001, presented to Marye Louise Daniels... and this one is a life membership.

CMH (Voice over): On the other side of the country in Perth, Western Australia, Pauline Hanson's most adoring staffer is reeling.

MD: When Pauline kicked us out of the party I took it down. It means nothing now, I don't want it on my desk. I shouldn't cry. I can't understand though, what I've


done. 'I trust Pauline Hanson' - look at this! I don't trust Pauline Hanson, when she's mean to me…

CMH: (Voice over): In January 2017, Pauline Hanson told Marye and her husband Ron McLean, the Secretary and the President of One Nation's WA Branch, they were no longer wanted, demanding all of their files.

MD: And I stood up, and I said, ‘You can't have the files’.

Ron McLean (RM): Yeah, she said to me, 'Ron you're too old to be a candidate, and we don't need you there'.

CMH: You're too old?

RM: Yeah, she told me I was too old, couple of times she said I was too old.

MD: Straight out.

RM: And I should not be there…

MD: I said it's an absolute disgrace, absolute disgrace. And then they went out the door. And then I started to cry, and I've been crying for three weeks, every time her name is mentioned, I cry.

RM: Yeah, we’d had a pretty close relationship.

MD: Oh, we were very close.

MD: Put it around this way… And you put it in there... Love this…

RM: Did you put it on play?

MD: Put it on play.

MD: Yep, away we go.

CMH (Voice over): Ron McLean and Marye Daniels have supported Pauline Hanson since the late 1990's.

[Home video plays]

Home videos from over the years record Marye Daniels performing at fundraising events they organised for Pauline Hanson.

Presenter (in home video): Ladies and gentlemen, Pauline Hanson!

CMH (Voice over): They’ve stood by her, through thick and thin.

MD: Oh look at me. She's overwhelmed, look.

PH (in home video): I'm stuck for words.

CMH (Voice over): On this night in September 2004, Pauline Hanson had been out of jail less than a year, after her convictions for electoral fraud were overturned on appeal.

PH (in home video): But very importantly, my being here was really due to Marye Louise Daniels and Ron McLean.

CMH (Voice over): The couple say they donated around $70,000 dollars to One Nation for legal fees, all up, adding up to well over $100,000 dollars to Pauline Hanson's party over the years.


When Pauline Hanson decided to contest the State election, Marye and Ron were tasked with getting the party up and running, recruiting hundreds of members, opening their home to vet dozens of candidates. Anthony Fels, a former Liberal Party MP - was the last of 40 One Nation contenders, to be interviewed and vetted by Pauline Hanson and James Ashby, filmed here at Marye and Ron's home in December 2016.

Anthony Fels (AF): Pauline wanted to know how much her party would be able to claim out of the election.

CMH: How much money One Nation could make?

AF: Yeah, how much money per, you know, it's ah dollars per vote ah based on the number of votes that they get. She was very interested to know how much they'd be eligible for and how that worked in Western Australia.

CMH: What were you left thinking?

AF: I felt that Pauline was very much focussed on how much they would earn out of the Western Australian election, and not so much focused on getting members into parliament.

CMH: So, you've kept a lot of the documentation from your time with One Nation?

Dane Sorenson (DS): I've pretty much kept everything…

CMH (Voice over): When Dane Sorensen was selected as a candidate, he was told he needed to sign a contract - a candidate's agreement.

DS: It's unreasonable. It doesn't bear any relationship to the costs to the party of you being elected.

CMH (Voice over): The contract enforces quarterly donations to the party…

[Visual of clauses on screen]

adding up to $5,000 per year, if elected, only reimburses candidates 75% of their expenses, and then there's this clause:

[Visual of clause on screen]

‘If ...(you) resign from the party in a sitting term a $250,000 administration fee will become due and payable immediately upon resignation.’

CMH (Voice over): Dane Sorensen refused to sign the agreement.

CMH: Did you raise your concerns with One Nation about that agreement you were being asked to sign?

DS: Definitely. I wrote quite a detailed email pointing out my areas of concern.

CMH: Did you receive a response?

DS: Yes. I was told that they would drop several of the clauses and that it was to be kept secret, that it was only to be four or five of us that would be offered the new and much-edited agreement, which doesn't speak very well for the rest of the candidates. I think it was very duplicit to do something like that.


CMH (Voice over): Dane Sorensen says he sent multiple emails of complaint to One Nation. Pauline Hanson responded by disendorsing him for refusing to conform to party policy, calling him 'belligerent and abusive'.

DS: If the public knew what went on in the party, I don't think they'd have anything to do with One Nation. They're just another grubby dirty bloody political party that are out to serve their own ends, their own interests.

PH in footage: Hence upon winning a Senate seat…

CMH (Voice over): Of all the things to anger One Nation's WA candidates, one stands out: Pauline Hanson's preference deal with the Liberal Party.

PH in footage: So yes, I am asking the people to trust me. To give us a go.

Sandy Baraiolo (S.BARA): You can't trust Pauline Hanson. She'll sell you one thing and she'll do something completely different. Pauline Hanson is about Pauline Hanson.

CMH (Voice over): When Sandy Baraiolo joined One Nation as a candidate, she had no idea about the backroom deal being done.

CMH: So, you had no idea…

S.BARA: None whatsoever.

CMH: That behind the scenes...?

S.BARA: Yes. Behind the scenes she was already manoeuvring - I would hazard a guess and say she was already manoeuvring behind the scenes and getting her deal in place.

CMH (Voice over): Pauline Hanson's discussions about a preference deal with the Liberals date back to at least the 21st of December 2016. On the evening she'd finished vetting candidates at the home of Ron McLean and Marye Daniels.

MD: She said, 'Oh I'm going to a meeting, I’ve got a meeting'. Oh I said 'Really? What sort of meeting?' and she said, 'A secret meeting'. I said, 'A secret meeting - who with?’ and she said, ‘I can't tell you.’

CMH (Voice over): Soon after, there was a knock at Ron and Marye's door.

MD: There was a knock on the door and I went to the door and I nearly died, there was Michaelia Cash and another gentleman, I didn't know it was her husband.

CMH: Just to be clear here Marye.

MD: Yeah.

CMH: Michaelia Cash and her husband arrived on your doorstep to pick Pauline Hanson and James Ashby up?

MD: Yes, to have a secret meeting.

CMH (Voice over): Michaelia Cash, the Federal Minister for Employment, was there to personally escort Pauline Hanson and James Ashby to dinner with another Liberal powerbroker, the Federal Minister for Finance, Mathias Cormann.


MD: We realised then it had been talked about before they even came over, because seeing Michaelia Cash at the door and her husband it was all arranged and nobody needed to introduce anybody, they all - all knew each other.

S.BARA: We were told categorically by Pauline Hanson that she was not going to make a deal with anybody.

CMH: Pauline Hanson told you, no preference deal?

S.BARA: Yes, no preference deal. She told all of us candidates the same thing.

CMH (Voice over): That was in January 2017. Three weeks later One Nation's WA candidates woke to the news their leader had done a deal.

S.BARA: I heard it on 882 6PR on my way to work and I was like, are you shitting me? Is that for real? Oh. My. God. That is wrong.

CMH (Voice over): Sandy Baraiolo took to her personal Facebook page and complained. She says she was ordered to delete her account, and was disendorsed over the phone by James Ashby and Pauline Hanson for being belligerent and not a team player.

CMH: During these phone conversations with James Ashby, how did he speak to you?

S.BARA: Oh my God. You should not speak to somebody like that, that is just so wrong. And when I said to him don't treat me like a petulant young child, he then starts berating me again, telling me that I don't follow orders, and it was just like, orders? Really?

PH in footage: I have to make the decisions. I am leader of this party. If they're not happy with it, everyone has a choice. Don't stand under my name.

CMH (Voice over): It's five days out from the Western Australian election. Pauline Hanson is on the campaign trail at a shopping centre on the outskirts of Perth. Polls predict One Nation could capture a massive 13% of the primary vote.

PH: We don't cheat, we don't lie, we are upfront with the people, and that's what we are about, that's what One Nation stands for. Representing the people with truth, honesty and integrity.

CMH (Voice over): We were there just in time to ask One Nation's leader a question.

CMH: Senator Hanson, why should the people of WA vote for you and vote for your party considering the mess with Rodney Culleton in the Senate, considering a string of disendorsed candidates, and people who've walked away from the party?

Colin Tincknell (CT): What about the mess with Craig Thompson?

CMH: Senator Hanson? Senator Hanson, why should people vote for your party?

PH: You're exactly… exactly right. Do you have a short memory of what's happened with the political parties over the years with their candidates? What about the Craig Thompson. Gordon Nuttall. I can name quite a few.

CT: Bronwyn Bishop.

PH: And the one that’s so here. So, every political party - and these were members of parliament, they'd been in there for quite a while. So you know, every party is going to have them problems.


MD: Now I don’t know Ron, I’m really nervous about this, you know we’ve never done this before.

CMH: Your hands are shaking.

CMH (Voice over): The next morning, a nervous Marye Daniels and Ron McLean are getting ready to drop a bomb on Pauline Hanson's One Nation.

MD: Got my sunglasses, got my knickers, I got my shoes, my lipstick and my man. And we’re off, come on.

CMH (Voice over): They've decided to challenge their dismissal from the party, claiming wrongful termination. Their news is broadcast live around the country.

John Hammond (JH): We now want to know why Ron and Marye Louise have been sacked.

MD: We're devastated, devastated.

CMH: Hello Ray, how are you?

CMH (Voice over): That afternoon, another burnt One Nation candidate comes forward.

CMH: Ray we're only a few days out from the election, why aren't you out putting these up?

Ray Gould (RG): Why? Because Pauline's done a preference deal with the Liberals. Plain as day. Pauline's attitude is if you don't like it, goodbye.

CMH (Voice over): Ray Gould, a retired bricklayer, says One Nation's preference deal with the Liberal Party has killed any chance he had in his electorate.

CMH: Ray, what are you going to do with all this stuff?

RG: Well I'm sorry Caro it's not soft enough for toilet paper so I think we'll just bin it.

CMH (Voice over): The next One Nation candidate to walk is Margaret Dodd, One Nation's highest profile candidate, a fierce campaigner for criminal justice and law and order.

Margaret Dodd (M.DODD): If you come with me, I'll just show you how absolutely shambolic and how wasteful this campaign has been. Here we have ten boxes, which is 30,000 ‘how to vote’ cards…

CMH: All these boxes here…

M.DODD: …all these boxes here, and not one of them can you use.

CMH (Voice over): She's been delivered a stack of invalid ‘how to vote’ cards organised by One Nation.

M.DODD: No printer's name and address, you've got to have that on them, everybody knows that.

CMH: And if the printers name and address isn't on them?

M.DODD: $1,000 fine every time you hand one out.

CMH (Voice over): Margaret Dodd has quit the party on the eve of the election.

CMH: How are you feeling?


M.DODD: I'm relieved, quite honestly. Relieved. Relieved at not being part of One Nation. It's not what I thought it was. I thought Pauline was this ordinary person, fightin’ for the battlers, she's out there shaking hands, high fiving people.

CMH: What is she then?

M.DODD: She is a populist, she goes on things that will get her the attention that she wants, gets her in the power position that she wants to be and that's all it is, it's about power for Pauline.

CMH: What does the public need to know, the voters need to know, about the truth of Pauline Hanson's One Nation?

M.DODD: They can't be trusted. There's nothing more to say. They just cannot be trusted.

CMH (Voice over): One Nation's election campaign is winding up. We've been asking Pauline Hanson for an interview for the past five weeks. All of our requests have been rejected. We made a final effort to speak with the Senator in between her many, daily media interviews.

CMH: Senator Hanson, Hi, I'm Caro from Four Corners at the ABC –

PH: Yep.

CMH: We'd love to have a chat with you –

PH: No look I’m really –

CMH: If you have any time throughout the next couple of days while you're in Perth? If you have any time throughout the next couple of days while you're in Perth?

PH: No –

CMH: Any chance at all of just fifteen minutes?

CMH (Voice over): It's election night at Marye Daniels and Ron McLeans’. Their home, once the epicentre of One Nation in Western Australia has become a meeting place for Pauline Hanson's growing list of casualties.

PH (in a television interview): Look doing the preference deal with the Liberal Party has definitely damaged us.

S.BARA: You do a deal with the devil, you get what you're given.

CMH (Voice over): One Nation polls 8% of the primary vote, well below their expected high of 13%. It's been a shambolic, ugly political campaign.

MD: The only thing I can say, is Pauline Hanson, you shouldn't have got rid of Marye and Ron, you shouldn't have got rid of Marye and Ron. Hip, hip hooray!

CMH (Voice over): As Pauline Hanson flies out of Western Australia her devastated state secretary is beginning to feel brighter.

MD: I’m happy today, happy today. Bye! Bye Pauline!

CMH (Voice over): Marye Daniels grabs the opportunity to say goodbye to her former leader.

MD: Goodbye, thank goodness, you're gone, goodbye thank goodness you're gone. Bye! Everybody c’mon, wave goodbye! All together, bye!


CMH (Voice over): She leaves behind a lot of unanswered questions. It's now up to Pauline Hanson - to please explain.

SF: Pauline Hanson and James Ashby declined to be interviewed or to answer written questions for the program.

Next week, the Facebook revolution. How the social media juggernaut is using our data to build its multi-billion dollar empire. See you then.


Attachment BComplainant A

Complaint to the broadcaster dated 3 April 2017:

[…]

I would like questions to be asked as to the motivations behind this one sided "expose”.

Thanks

I will also be taking this further up the chain


Hello Before I take this any further, I’d like to give you a chance to explain your actions.

Why did you broadcast an illegally recorded phone call from Pauline Hanson? As a taxpayer I am outraged my funds are going to illegal activities.

In your haste to destroy a woman you forgot who you are.

Awaiting your reply

Complaint to the ACMA dated 12 April 2017:

Dear ACMA

This is the response from the ABC and it is unsatisfactory. I want proof that the law was not broken in the recordings.

I will not take the word of the ABC.

I want concrete proof that the law was not broken and I want to know where the 2 days of footage of the one nation candidate went and why not televised.

Complainant B


[…] Would you please advise the following:

1. Did you inquire whether these telephone conversations were recorded in a State or Territory which prohibits telephone recordings without the permission of the people involved in the conversations?

2. Did you inquire who recorded the conversations, whether that person or persons recorded the conversations legally, and if so, whether Four Corners was properly authorised to broadcast the conversations?

3. Did you seek the permission of all or any of the people involved in the conversations to broadcast the recorded conversations as required by the broadcasting laws?


4. Do you agree that it's a breach of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (item 5.8) to broadcast recorded telephone conversations without permission of the person or persons involved?

Complaint to the ACMA received on 24 April 2017:

I […] refer to the above television program which included the broadcast of two secretly recorded telephone conversations, one apparently recorded in Western Australia and the other apparently recorded in Queensland. Both states permit the secret recording of telephone conversations, but once recorded, the relevant legislation provides limited opportunity for broadcasting the material.

I contend that broadcasting the secretly recorded telephone conversations has greatly damaged [Pauline Hanson and James Ashby] and is a contumelious breach of their privacy. In the Western Australia conversation, Senator Hanson was secretly recorded talking with former senator Rod Culleton. In the Queensland conversation, Mr Ashby was secretly recorded talking with a number of prospective One Nation parliamentary candidates.

[…]

There are two ABC responses to my complaint […]. Both responses refer to standard 5.9 of the ABC Code of Practice. Copies of the code available on the internet do not include any reference to standard 5.9, although I accept that such a standard exists and is substantially as described in the ABC responses to my complaint. Please treat this complaint to ACMA as relating to standards 5.8 and 5.9 of the code of practice.

[…]

They made it clear in the program they had no wish to speak to the ABC and it follows they would not want telephone conversations broadcast without their prior approval […].

[…]

It is a low blow, with respect, portraying [Pauline Hanson and James Ashby] as deceptive and overbearing. The broadcast was unfair in that [Pauline Hanson and James Ashby] had every reason to expect they were having private conversations. They made it clear in the program they had no wish to speak to the ABC and it follows they would not want telephone conversations broadcast without their prior approval.

[…]


Attachment CBroadcaster’s response and submissions

ABC response to Complainant A dated 11 April 2017:

Thank you for your email regarding the Four Corners program, ‘Please Explain’.

Your email has been considered by Audience and Consumer Affairs, a unit which is separate to and independent of content making areas within the ABC. Our role is to review and, where appropriate, investigate complaints alleging that ABC content has breached the ABC's editorial standards. These standards are explained in the ABC Code of Practice which is available here - http://about.abc.net.au/reports-publications/code-of-practice/.

We understand your complaints to allege that the program was not impartial. Impartiality standards are set out in section 4 and relevantly include the requirement to present news and information with due impartiality and the requirement to present a diversity of perspectives over time. The impartiality standards prohibit the undue favouring of one perspective over another.

The Four Corners program, ‘Please Explain’, examined a matter of significant public interest - the inner workings of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party, an emerging force in Australian politics. The party has four federal senators as well as representatives in the Queensland and West Australian parliaments.

We have reviewed the program and note that it examined issues including the party’s priorities, policies and values; its support amongst voters; its treatment of candidates, representatives, workers and supporters; its compliance with rules regarding political donations; its arrangements with James Ashby’s printing business; and its deals with rival political parties. In examining these issues, the program presented a range of principal relevant perspectives as well as documentary evidence in support of claims made by interviewees. The perspectives presented in the program included the views of Senator Malcolm Roberts, who voiced his strong support for both the One Nation Party and Senator Hanson personally, as well as the views of a number of former party workers and candidates who had become disenchanted with the party and its leader. The program has explained that it sought interviews with Senator Hanson and Mr Ashby, but these were declined, and that Senator Hanson and Mr Ashby also declined to respond to the program’s written questions. Having carefully reviewed the program, we are satisfied that it complied with the ABC’s impartiality standards.

The ABC is a media entity with significant investigative experience. It is familiar with the legislation regulating recording of private conversations and is confident that the program complied with the relevant requirements.

Should you be dissatisfied with this response as it relates to the program’s compliance with the ABC Code of Practice, you may be able to pursue your complaint with the Australian Communications and Media Authority, www.acma.gov.au.

ABC response to Complainant B dated 7 April 2017:

[…]


http://www.acma.gov.au/

http://about.abc.net.au/reports-publications/code-of-practice/

Standard 5.8 sets out a general prohibition on the ABC's own use of secret recording devices, misrepresentation or other types of deception to obtain or seek information, audio, pictures or an agreement to participate, and specifies three exemptions to this general prohibition:

a) where the use of these means is justified in the public interest and the material cannot reasonably be obtained by any other means; or

b) where consent is obtained from the subject or identities are effectively obscured; or

c) where the deception is integral to an artistic work and the potential for harm is taken into consideration.

Standard 5.8 should be read in conjunction with standard 5.9. Standard 5.9 provides, inter alia, that where there is a proposal to broadcast material obtained by deception — such as secret recordings made by a third party — approval must be sought in advance from an appropriately senior ABC person designated for this purpose. That person must consult with ABC Legal before approving the proposal.

Standard 5.8 is not relevant to the Four Corners program, 'Please Explain', as the ABC did not use secret recording devices or deception to obtain the secretly recorded calls. Standard 5.9 does apply because the ABC decided to broadcast calls that had been secretly recorded by third parties.

I have confirmed that, in keeping with standard 5.9, Four Corners obtained approval from an appropriately senior ABC person designated for the purpose prior to broadcasting the calls that had been secretly recorded by third parties, and that ABC Legal was consulted before the decision to approve was made.

[…]

ABC submission to the ACMA dated 17 May 2017:

[…]

My responses to [Complainant A] and [Complainant B] specifically addressed the program’s compliance with the ABC Code of Practice and the ABC does not wish to make further submissions at this stage.

It may assist the ACMA to note that the ABC’s ‘Guidance Note on Secret Recording Devices in News, Current Affairs and Other Factual Content’ sets out the requirements the ABC must follow if it knows that acquired material was obtained through the use of a secret recording device – that is, approval must be obtained from an appropriately senior ABC person prior to broadcast. These approval processes reflect the requirements of standard 5.9, which does not form part of the ABC Code of Practice.

[…]

Scope of ACMA investigation

To the extent that [Complainant A’s] complaint relates to the broadcast of a telephone call from Pauline Hanson and alleges that the ABC engaged in ‘illegal activities’, we wish to make clear that this does not constitute an alleged breach of the Code […]

In relation to [Complainant B’s] complaint, the ABC does not agree with [Complainant B’s] contention that his complaint to the ABC included an allegation that standard 6.1 of the Code had been breached.


http://about.abc.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/GNSecretRecordingNewsINS.pdf

http://about.abc.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/GNSecretRecordingNewsINS.pdf

[…]

[…] [Complainant B] has made no complaint to the ABC alleging that standard 6.1 of the Code was breached by the program, and this matter cannot fall within the scope of ACMA’s investigation.

[…]


Date post:	17-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vonhan
View:	212 times
Download:	0 times

Investig… · Web viewThe perspectives presented in the program included the views of Senator...

Documents