Email sent to the ABC Board on 23.04.26
To the ABC Board,
I write to question the role and powers of the ABC Ombudsman, and the parameters within which the position currently operates.
My initial complaint concerned the ABC’s reporting on the Let Women Speak event held in Melbourne in 2023. While concerns about bias persist, I am particularly troubled that, in this case, the Ombudsman appeared either unwilling or unable to exercise the responsibilities of the role. Ms Cameron’s response noted that she has the “discretion to reject a content complaint for investigation.” In this instance, that discretion appears to have been used to avoid scrutiny, reinforcing concerns that the ABC is not meeting its statutory obligation to provide accurate and impartial journalism.
I first contacted ABC Complaints on 17 May 2025 regarding what I consider to be consistent misrepresentation of the Let Women Speak movement, which describes itself as “defending the rights of women—adult human females.” My complaint was rejected on 27 May 2025 due to my use of the term “anti-trans rally” rather than “anti-trans rights rally.” This distinction was used to dismiss the complaint.
In response, I undertook a detailed review of 80 ABC articles and broadcasts (text, audio, and video) published between 27 March 2023 and 28 May 2025. Of these, 64% described the event as an “anti-trans rights” rally, with a further 10% using that term alongside “Let Women Speak rally.” I refer you to my full analysis and supporting correspondence.
The event’s organisers describe it as a “women’s rights movement,” and its organiser, Kellie-Jay Keen, identifies as a women’s rights campaigner. Critics describe the movement as “anti-trans rights,” which is their prerogative. However, the ABC overwhelmingly adopted this latter framing, rather than reflecting both perspectives. A more impartial approach would have acknowledged the differing characterisations.
I escalated the matter to the ABC Ombudsman, Fiona Cameron. Two months later, I was advised that the complaint would not be investigated due to the age of the content, citing a three-month limit. This represents a discretionary decision not to consider evidence of a broader pattern.
I subsequently wrote to Anika Wells MP on 27 February 2026 to question whether the Ombudsman role is fit for purpose, particularly given the apparent impossibility of demonstrating systemic bias within a three-month reporting window. Patterns of bias typically emerge over longer periods and across multiple outputs. The response I received directed me back to the same process I had already exhausted.
I am aware that the ABC has now severed ties with ACON; however, I remain concerned that its prior participation in ACON’s Workplace Equality Index may have influenced reporting on this issue. I also question whether this involvement has affected the independence of the ABC Ombudsman, whose role is to ensure fairness, objectivity, and transparency in the complaints process, build public trust, and safeguard the ABC’s integrity. In my view, participation in an external framework of this kind risks creating a perception of alignment with advocacy positions, rather than maintaining clear editorial independence.
I therefore ask:
- Do you consider the ABC Ombudsman, as currently constrained, to be fit for purpose?
- Do you accept that the ABC’s reporting on the Let Women Speak rally demonstrated bias in framing the event, and that this may have influenced public perception?
Kind regards,
A. Johnsen
Response received from Kim Williams on the 30.04.26
Dear Mr Johnsen,
Thank you for your note of 23 April.
In response to your questions I would respond as follows:-
The ABC board considers the Ombudsman’s Office properly and adequately responds to the large volume of representations managed which are as you would expect for a national public institution are very substantial in number.
We express confidence in the Office and its responses set out in the original and subsequent Ombudsman Office communications about the review of the matters in question and regard them as having been coherent, respectful and relevant.
Naturally, we accept that some ABC reportage does not accord with that which is desired by individual respondents, acknowledging that a variety of perspectives exist on contested issues and that a uniform view is, from time to time, not achievable.
I in no way diminish the intensity of your commentary or the commitment you have vigorously made to representing the viewpoint expressed in your communications and whilst I know that will not necessarily be welcome, your viewpoint is understood and respected.
I do thank you for your feedback
With all best wishes,
Kim
Email sent to Kim Williams on 05.05.26
Dear Kim,
You’re right, I do find the response unsatisfactory, but I appreciate you taking the time to provide a considered response.
I would like to ask two more questions:
1. How is it possible, with a three-month window (as determined by the ABC Ombudsman), to prove a long-term pattern of bias? The particular pattern I identified became apparent over a period of more than two years.
2. If the three-month window is applied at the ABC Ombudsman’s discretion, on what basis is that discretion used?
Regards,
A. Johnsen
Reply from Kim Williams on the 05.05.26
Dear Anthony,
The three month period for processing complaints relates to the primary programming complaint role fulfilled by the Ombudsman Office (it was extended from a lesser period at the time of the creation of the Ombudsman role). Your enquiry and complaint was made specifically to the Board about the Ombudsman Office and hence the response.
The tracking of broader editorial issues which travel over a more extended period is undertaken by the ABC Editorial Policies unit which reports regularly to the board.
You may review the Editorial Policies on the ABC website at https://www.abc.net.au/edpols .
If I erred in not directing you there previously I apologise for not having done so, although I assumed you have a broad familiarity with the policies.
I didn’t want to overload you with material as I believe succinct and direct responses to matters raised are invariably preferable.
With every good wish,
Kim