The Albanese government has declined to adopt a proposal for an independent external complaints body to scrutinise the ABC and SBS, The Guardian has exclusively reported. The government has opted to retain the public broadcasters’ existing complaints arrangements, pointing to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) as the existing avenue for independent external review of complaints escalated beyond the broadcasters’ internal processes.
It is important to note here that ACMA’s regulatory remit does not extend to online news content in the same way it applies to broadcasting, leaving a significant gap in external oversight as audiences increasingly consume news through digital platforms.
The decision raises broader questions about accountability at Australia’s publicly funded broadcasters, particularly when complaints concern perceived bias, impartiality and the representation of multicultural communities.
The proposal was put forward by Australia’s Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal, who has argued that the existing arrangements do not provide sufficiently independent scrutiny of complaints about coverage of Israel and the Middle East.
Segal first raised the proposal during hearings of the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion in July. She argued that the broadcasters were effectively acting as their own judges when assessing complaints about their editorial coverage and called for an external ombudsman or independent oversight mechanism.
In an updated report released in October, she reiterated the recommendation, arguing that the seriousness of concerns about the accuracy, impartiality and proportionality of reporting warranted more detailed independent examination.
However, the government has indicated it will not replace the existing ABC and SBS ombudsmen with the proposed external body. Communications Minister Anika Wells’ spokesperson thanked Segal for her work but said the government would consider the forthcoming Royal Commission report, expected in December, before deciding on further action.
The government’s position is that ACMA already provides an avenue for external review when complaints are escalated.
Both broadcasters have also defended their existing arrangements. The ABC describes its complaints framework as comprehensive, while SBS maintains that its independent ombudsman and external regulatory oversight provide adequate accountability.
But the debate should not be viewed exclusively through the experience of Jewish Australians or complaints about reporting on the Israel-Gaza conflict.
Indian and Hindu Australians have also raised longstanding concerns about what they regard as biased, one-sided or inadequate reporting by the public broadcasters. These concerns have included coverage of Hindu religious issues, attacks on Hindu minorities overseas, India’s political affairs and the portrayal of the Hindu community in Australia.
The scale of dissatisfaction was highlighted in the Australian Hindus 2024 survey. Almost 80 per cent of respondents rated the ABC’s reporting on Hindus as poor or very poor. Among respondents who had complained to the ABC, more than 86 per cent said they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the response. The corresponding figure for complaints to SBS was also more than 86 per cent.
More than 80 per cent of respondents supported the appointment of an independent ombudsman for the ABC.
These figures represent the views of survey respondents rather than a nationally representative assessment of all Hindu Australians. Nevertheless, they point to a level of dissatisfaction that deserves serious consideration.
There are also documented examples of complaints concerning coverage of Hindu and Indian issues reaching the ABC Ombudsman’s Office.
In February 2024, the ABC received 275 complaints about its reporting on the inauguration of the Ram temple in Ayodhya by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Among the concerns were the historical context surrounding the site, the representation of Hindu perspectives and the accuracy of aspects of the reporting. The ombudsman’s investigation found no breach of the ABC’s editorial standards.
In another case, the ABC received complaints about its Four Corners program, ‘Infiltrating Australia’, which examined alleged Indian government influence in Australia. Complainants raised concerns about impartiality and what they considered anti-Hindu sentiment. The ombudsman again found no breach.
Complaints were also lodged over ABC coverage of attacks on Hindu minorities in Bangladesh, with complainants questioning whether the broadcaster had adequately reported the violence and whether its reporting gave sufficient weight to the experiences of Hindu minorities. The ABC’s subsequent review found no breach of its editorial standards.
The ABC’s own figures show that complaints about India and Indian politics have been a significant feature of audience concerns. Its January-June 2024 mid-year ombudsman update recorded that coverage of India and Indian politics accounted for 10 per cent of complaints during that period.
For communities that feel their concerns have repeatedly been dismissed, the existence of an internal complaints process does not automatically translate into confidence that their grievances have been adequately addressed.
The ABC and SBS are not ordinary private media outlets. They receive substantial public funding (over 1.5 billion dollars annually) and have specific obligations to serve Australia’s diverse population. Their responsibilities extend beyond reporting on multicultural communities to ensuring that those communities are represented fairly and that their experiences are not overlooked or distorted.
One does not need to be a rocket scientist to infer the pattern here. Biased reporting can have serious consequences for the well-being and security of the communities concerned, particularly when public broadcasters, armed with billions of dollars in taxpayer funding, have considerable power to shape public perceptions.
Despite India-born Australians having the highest median income of any population group in Australia, and among the lowest levels of criminality, negative perceptions of Indian Australians have increased significantly in recent years according to reports. Jewish Australians, who are also among the country’s most highly educated, highest-earning and law-abiding communities, have experienced a similar deterioration in public perceptions.
The correlation between the increasingly negative perceptions of these communities and what many regard as persistent editorial bias in publicly funded broadcasters is difficult to dismiss as mere coincidence and deserves serious scrutiny.
Ultimately, the test of a complaints system is not simply whether it exists, but whether Australians have confidence in its independence, transparency and capacity to address legitimate concerns.
Support our Journalism
No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.
