FILED UNDER 'IT'S ABOUT TIME': Channel 7, Samantha Armytage & Prue McQueen will be sued for racial vilification over a 'Sunrise" broadcast in March 2018

14 June 2019

Australian Communications & Media Authority (ACMA), media release:

The ACMA has accepted a court-enforceable undertaking from Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd (Channel Seven) following breaches of the Commercial TV Code of Practice in a Sunrise ‘Hot Topics’ segment broadcast in March 2018. 

The segment dealt with the adoption of indigenous children and child abuse in indigenous communities. 

The ACMA found that the segment was inaccurate and provoked serious contempt on the basis of race in breach of the industry’s code. [my yellow highlighting]

 Channel Seven sought judicial review of the ACMA’s findings that the segment provoked serious contempt on the basis of race, but discontinued court proceedings in April 2019. 

Under the court-enforceable undertaking, Channel Seven must conduct an independent review of how and the extent to which relevant production processes on Sunrise ensure code compliance in relation to sensitive and complex matters. 

A report of the review must be provided to Channel Seven’s Board and Audit and Risk Committee within six months. 

The ACMA will verify the independence of, and terms of reference for, the review. 

Channel Seven has also undertaken that Sunrise editorial staff will be trained to identify and deal with sensitive matters within six months and notify the ACMA within five business days that the training is complete. 

If Channel Seven breaches the court-enforceable undertaking, the ACMA can apply to the Federal Court for a number of orders, including directing Channel Seven to comply with the undertaking, and any other order the court considers appropriate. 

MS 21/2019

11 June 2020

Settlement negotiations have broken down and the matter is on its way to the Federal Court on behalf of the eight Aboriginal complainants, including elders, award winners and young leaders .

Tweets of the Week

Here’s the moment where the NSW Parliament voted tonight to introduce new laws to fast track children from foster care into adoption. As the Bill passed, you could hear loud jokes from Liberal members about wanting to “hurry up so we can get out of here and enjoy Christmas” pic.twitter.com/WW1p1bTbD1

— Padraic Gibson (@paddygibson) November 22, 2018

“These reforms were sprung on the legal, community & Aboriginal sectors with no notice. What limited consultation occurred in 2017 made no mention of many of these reforms, & those that were raised were opposed by a majority of stakeholders,” Leach said” https://t.co/JIkJATdluz

— Ray Wilton (@raywilton4) November 23, 2018

The difference between Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott

During the National Apology for Forced Adoptions held in the Great Hall at Parliament House in Canberra, the difference between the world views of Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott was graphically demonstrated.

There were tears and applause for Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard:

http://youtu.be/aZ5gE_8TRzM

Full speech transcript

The first moment when approval of the Leader of the Opposition Tony Abbott  turned to anger, interjection and shouting:

http://youtu.be/OAZywwaLR-o

Full speech transcript
Note: transcript appears to have been amended by author since first publication

A perspective from one of the many in the Great Hall that day:

Yesterday I stood proudly alongside my biological mother -- who I now call mum -- in Canberra to hear the historic national apology. It was a monumental occasion to be sitting next to my mother listening to Prime Minister Julia Gillard give an authentic and informed apology. Mum and I were both impressed, and you could tell by the response of other people affected by forced adoption that they were elated when she actually acknowledged the harm by talking about the loss of lives to suicide.
The emotions in the room were palpable. Gillard used the word illegal, which we were hoping for. Mum desperately needed to hear that word... 


When Abbott started speaking, immediately the tone of the room and the elated atmosphere disintegrated rapidly. Abbott obviously had not consulted with anyone. He didn’t understand the findings of the Senate inquiry and didn’t understand that language is so important when we’re talking about forced adoption. He spoke about "relinquishment" not "forced adoption". We were there for a national apology on forced adoption, not relinquishment. My mother did not relinquish me, I was taken.
He also used the term "birth mothers". For the majority, the mothers and fathers consider themselves parents, period. That’s when the heckling occurred, when he used the term birth parents. For my mother, it echoed the judgemental and insensitive practices of the past.
Everything that Gillard achieved in terms of validating all the mothers, fathers, sons and daughters was completely eroded by Abbott’s speech. One of the recommendations was to bring broader public awareness around the coercive and illegal practices that occurred. If our Opposition Leader couldn’t even understand what happened and use the appropriate words, then what hope do we have of the broader community understanding?