Australian Communications and Media Authority has found that Channel Seven Sydney breached the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice during “Sunrise” program segmennt on indigenous children

On 13 March 2018 the Channel 7 Sunrise program’s “Hot Topic” chat segment featured Sunrise co-host Samantha Armytage, commentator Prue MacSween, and Brisbane radio personality Ben Davis.

The ensuing discussion of indigenous children was reportedly inaccurate, insensitive, uttered stereotypical generalisations and was borderline racist.

Almost five months later an investigation into the incident conducted by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 was concluded and in September a media release was issued.

Australian Communications and Media Authority, media release, 4 September 2018:

The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has found that Channel Seven Sydney breached the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice in a Sunrise ‘Hot Topics’ segment broadcast on 13 March 2018.

The ACMA found that the introduction to the segment claiming Indigenous children could ‘only be placed with relatives or other Indigenous families,’ was inaccurate and in breach of the Code. The licensee explained that this repeated a statement from a newspaper of the day. However, the ACMA considered that Seven should have taken steps to verify the accuracy of this claim before it was used as the foundation for a panel discussion.

The ACMA noted the follow-up 'Hot Topics' segment broadcast by Seven on 20 March 2018 was a more informed discussion in which a panellist accurately described the true position regarding placement of Indigenous children. However, the ACMA found that the follow-up segment did not correct the earlier error in an appropriate manner in the circumstances.

The ACMA investigation also found that the segment provoked serious contempt on the basis of race in breach of the Code as it contained strong negative generalisations about Indigenous people as a group. These included sweeping references to a ‘generation’ of young Indigenous children being abused. While it may not have been Seven’s intention, by implication the segment conveyed that children left in Indigenous families would be abused and neglected, in contrast to non-Indigenous families where they would be protected.

‘Broadcasters can, of course, discuss matters of public interest, including extremely sensitive topics such as child abuse in Indigenous communities. However, such matters should be discussed with care, with editorial framing to ensure compliance with the Code,’ said ACMA Chair, Nerida O’Loughlin.

‘The ACMA considers that the high threshold for this breach finding was met, given the strong negative generalisations about Indigenous people as a group,’ added Ms O’Loughlin.

The ACMA is in discussions with Channel Seven about its response to the breach findings. Channel Seven has indicated that it may seek judicial review of the ACMA’s decision.

Tweet of the Week

It's all about power #InsidersExtra #Insiders @barriecassidy #auspol pic.twitter.com/eW2BhoKJHM

— Insiders ABC (@InsidersABC) August 31, 2018

Quote of the Week

“We have lost our moral compass as a nation. And our new PM has been a huge part of the problem.”  [Director of Legal Advocacy at Human Rights Law Centre Daniel Webb, Twitter, 31 August 2018]

Yamba community successfully lobbied for the installation of a roundabout instead of traffic lights at intersection of Treelands Drive and Yamba Road

One of a number of signs along Yamba Road protesting the traffic lights

After a protracted debate on 21 August 2018 Clarence Valley Council voted to install traffic lights at an intersection in Yamba by five votes to four, with councillors Richie Williamson, Jason Kingsley, Andrew Baker, Arthur Lysaught and Mayor Jim Simmons voting in favour and Debrah Novak, Peter Ellem, Greg Clancy and Karen Toms against.

It was noticeable that all three Yamba councillors were against the motion, reflecting the sentiments of many local residents.

A formal rescission motion was lodged by Clrs. Toms, Ellem and Clancy which read:

That Council:

1. Rescind Part 2 and 3 of resolution 15.134/18 on Yamba Road/Treelands Drive Intersection Upgrade

And replace with the following points:

2. Adopt Option 4 - Mini Roundabout as the control measure for the Treelands Drive/Yamba Road

Intersection.

3. Complete the detailed design for the Mini Roundabout intersection of Treelands Drive and Yamba Road.

On 4 September this was considered at an extraordinary council meeting.

At this meeting the vote ratio reversed itself and Option 4 – Mini Roundabout was adopted by five votes to four.

Much to the relief of a crowded visitors’ gallery.

The new Australian Minister for Energy & Liberal MP for Hume Angus Taylor has "thought hard" about climate change for over 30 years.....

..... and is holding firm to his 2014 decision to do nothing constructive about mitigating the effects of climate change either globally or nationally.

Excerpt form House of Representatives Hansard, 24 September 2014:

Mr TAYLOR (Hume) (15:44): It is a great pleasure to speak on this matter of public importance because I have had a deep concern about climate change for over 30 years. I have watched the snowline rise south of here, and it is something that I have thought hard about for over 30 years. That has meant that I have come to the conclusion that there are three things that taking climate change seriously really means. The first is effective and consistent policies that actually contain global atmospheric concentrations. Secondly, that you bring the Australian people along with you. Thirdly, you protect the Australian economy so that we can pay for all of this. Let me tell you what I believe it does not mean. It does not mean throwing lots of money at the problem for the sake of it. It does not mean passing encyclopedias of legislation. It does not mean putting endless programs in place. It does not mean establishing a cavalry of so-called independent advisers and advisory boards. It does not mean turning up at lots of global meetings.

The world is running out of patience with Australia: Europe warns Morrison Government

Europe has strongly signalled that the Morrison Coalition Government needs to stop pretending it has a national climate change policy and keep the pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions made under the November 2016 U.N. Paris Agreement which the Australian Government ratified and, on the government's part contained such a pitifully weak commitment to a 2030 abatement target i.e. emissions reduced by 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels. 

The Sydney Morning Herald, 31 August 2018:

The Coalition's internal climate war risks damaging the economy after Europe declared it would reject a $15 billion trade deal with Australia unless the Morrison government keeps its pledge to cut pollution under the Paris accord.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison this week reset his government’s course on energy policy, declaring a focus on lowering electricity bills and increasing reliability, while relegating efforts to cut dangerous greenhouse gas emissions.

He has reaffirmed his government’s commitment to the Paris accord despite persistent calls by conservative Coalition MPs, led by Tony Abbott, to quit the agreement.

However there is deep uncertainty over how Australia will meet the Paris goal of reducing Australia’s carbon emissions by 26 per cent by 2030 given the government does not have a national strategy to meet the target.

The policy ructions did not go unnoticed at a meeting of the European Parliament's Committee on International Trade in Brussels, where the EU’s chief negotiator on the deal, Helena König, faced angry questions from the floor over Australia’s commitment to climate action.

Australia and the EU will in November enter a second round of negotiations over the deal that would end restrictions on Australian exports and collectively add $15 billion to both economies.

In a video of this week's proceedings, Ms König told the committee that “it’s the [European] Commission’s position ... that we are talking about respect and full implementation of the Paris agreement [as part of the trade deal]”.

“No doubt we will see what comes out in the text [of the deal agreement] but that I expect to be the minimum in the text, for sure.”

Her assertion is a clear signal that any failure by Australia to meet its international climate obligations would have serious economic consequences.

Ms König fired off the warning after a question by Klaus Buchner, a German Greens member of the Parliament who said “the intention of the new Australian regime to withdraw from the Paris Agreement unsettles not only Australians”.

“Australia is by far the biggest exporter of coal in the world ... what will the commission do when Australia does indeed withdraw from the Paris agreement? Is this a red line for us in these discussions or do we just accept it?

“I believe as the largest trading block in the world we have a responsibility to go beyond pure profits.”

Mark Lathan’s defence of defamation dismissed

Excerpts from Federal Court of Australia, Faruqi v Latham [2018] FCA 1328, Defamation:

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 

1.  The respondent’s defence dated 23 November 2017 be struck out.

2.  The applicant’s interlocutory application filed 14 December 2017 be otherwise dismissed.

3.  The respondent’s interlocutory application filed 11 December 2017 be dismissed.

4.  The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of and associated with the interlocutory applications referred to in orders 2 and 3.

5.  The parties jointly arrange for the matter to be listed for a case management hearing on the earliest date suitable to the parties and the Court after 28 September 2018……

WIGNEY J:

1. What does the martyrdom of Christians in the Roman Empire between the reign of the Emperor Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus and Emperor Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus Augustus have to do with a defamation action commenced in Australia in 2017?  How could the persecution of ethnoreligious Huguenots in the French Kingdom during the French Wars of Religion of the Sixteenth Century be said to rationally affect the assessment of the probability of a fact in issue in a modern-day defamation action in which the defamatory imputations are said to be that the applicant knowingly assists terrorist fanatics who want to kill innocent people in Australia, or condones the murder of innocent people by Islamic terrorists, or encourages and facilitates terrorism‽  Could the fact of the segregation and ill-treatment of ethnic Negro people under the doctrine of Apartheid in South Africa between 1948 and 1991 reasonably be said to be relevant to the defences of justification, contextual truth, qualified privilege, honest opinion and fair comment pleaded by the respondent in that defamation action?

2. These and other equally beguiling questions are raised by the interlocutory applications filed by the parties in this matter.

Read the full judgment at https://jade.io/article/602963?at.hl=faruqi+latham