Hard truths not welcome

Last year, the ABC received $560 million of our taxes to keep it going.  What value do we get for our funds?

Well, the ABC brings us a lot of British programs -- eight out of the ABC's top 10 rating shows are British while 60 per cent of its top 100 programs are produced overseas.

Ads on the ABC are congenially located between, rather than within, programs.

The ABC deals with matters in a more in-depth and comprehensive way than the commercial channels generally do, though Nine's Sunday remains the best current affairs program on TV, mainly because it tends to be more open-minded in its viewpoint.

The benefits of expenditure on the ABC go to the ABC's viewers -- whose incomes average 20-25 per cent more than those of the commercial channels.

It is not clear why working class families who watch commercial television should be taxed to provide congenial viewing and listening for higher income Australians (according to Morgan-Gallup figures, almost 40 per cent of TV news watchers with incomes of $70,000 or more watch ABC News).

Indeed, the ABC's viewing audience is a group that a potential private owner of the ABC would be eager to continue to cater for.

All this makes it doubly important that the ABC plays fair by the range of opinion and values in this country.

It is particularly important how the ABC responds to allegations of bias.

During the waterfront dispute last year, Senator Richard Alston -- the Minister responsible for the ABC -- suggested publicly the ABC's coverage was biased.  The ABC responded by commissioning Professor Philip Bell to do a study of its ABC News and 7.30 Report coverage.

This report was released on 27 May.  The ABC made much of its finding that the coverage was balanced -- particularly citing the count of "soundbites" of on-air which found that the union side only had 6 per cent more soundbites than the Patrick-Howard Government side.

I have just completed my own "audit" of the ABC News coverage, including a complete count of soundbites.

This full count shows that the union side received 25 per cent more soundbites than their opponents, and, because the pro-union soundbites averaged nine seconds, compared to eight seconds for the Patrick/ Government side, achieved 36 per cent more air time.

ABC journalists also made 33 per cent more MUA-favourable statements than Patrick/ Government favourable statements, were twice as likely to report the MUA's legal arguments as Patrick's, and were twice as likely to report opinion polls favourable to the Maritime Unions' side than the Patrick/ Government side, despite the polls during the period showing public opinion to be very evenly divided.

In 69 reports over 27 days totalling over 2 1/2 hours of coverage they failed to inform viewers of the context of the dispute.

In particular, the Maritime Union campaign against the leasing of Webb Dock to P&C Stevedores, a campaign which provoked an increasingly desperate Patrick into the lockout, was effectively a "non-subject".

Without that context, the ABC News' viewers were not given key information relevant to the dispute.  Instead, we had a waterfront "war" with Patrick cast as the (unprovoked) aggressors.

Given the ABC had made so much of the Bell Report finding that its coverage was balanced, my exposure of inadequacies of the Bell Report, particularly the count of soundbites, should surely be a matter for concern.  Instead, it is being treated by the ABC as another "non-subject".

ABC Managing Director Brian Johns' response to our findings was to say that the ABC Board was happy with the Bell Report (did they have the information to properly judge it?  One wonders), that my report came from "their point of view" and added "no independent value".

In other words, don't bother me with awkward facts, no matter how well-documented.

As an exercise in accountability, the ABC's performance and response is completely inadequate.

Despite what Mr Johns seems happy to imply, we did not conjure our findings out of thin air or our prejudices.

Soundbites are things you can count;  we did not invent extra soundbites, nor did we strategically leave them out.

Coding statements for subject matter, etc is also a relatively straightforward exercise, as is determining what was not covered.

It is only "our ABC" if it is genuinely accountable to us for the quality of its product, and it takes that accountability seriously.

On the above evidence, there is a fair way to go before we can be confident that either is true

How the MUA won the propaganda war, with a little media help

Propaganda, like the news, is a complex and multifaceted concept.  During World War II, for example, British propaganda, both domestically and in the United States, was widely accepted as a legitimate part of the war effort.  The temporary cessation of freedom of the press justified because of extraordinary circumstances.

Propaganda, in its original sense, did not necessarily imply deceit or falsehoods, but rather a concerted effort to mobilise or change popular beliefs through the propagation of ideas.  It was a campaign for the hearts and minds of the populace, a battle for moral victory.  During war, whether real or imagined, there is always a strong element of propaganda.  Both sides seek to solidify support through the selective presentation of facts, and in many cases, fiction.

During last year's so-called waterfront war between Patrick Stevedores and the Maritime Union of Australia, both sides waged a war of propaganda in an effort to win popular support.

Patrick, with the backing of the Coalition Government, argued that the MUA had been on an aggressive campaign to drive the stevedoring company out of business.  Patrick had no other rational choice than to lock out the union.

The MUA, in turn, argued that Patrick and the Government were simply interested in union-busting.  Economic arguments about crane rates, rorts and inefficiencies were smokescreens.

The truth, as with most wars, was dependent on one's perspective.  Elements of truth were present in both side's propaganda campaigns:  Patrick and the Coalition were intent on breaking the MUA's monopoly and the Union, understandably, was fighting back.

As more and more "ordinary" Australians joined the pickets on docks throughout Australia, it begged the question -- why the apparent upsurge in support?  Was unionism making a comeback?  Or was the MUA's propaganda campaign simply more effective?

At the time, the ABC was accused of having biased and prejudiced coverage, most notably by the minister responsible for the broadcaster, Richard Alston.

In response, ABC commissioned Professor Philip Bell of the University of New South Wales to investigate the charges.  The Bell Report, having examined ABC-TV news (Sydney) and the 7:30 Report, concluded that the ABC's coverage of the waterfront dispute had been professional, fair and balanced.

I, however, have conducted a study of the same ABC news reports, and has concluded that the coverage favoured the MUA through a selective presentation of the facts.

Journalists' natural inclination when reporting any war is to identify which side is the aggressor, the baddie, the evil-doer.  On ABC news, the mass sackings, as the lockout was often called, was framed as "Day One" of the waterfront war.  Neither the MUA's strike actions preceding the lock-out nor its intransigence with regard to improving dockside productivity were reported by ABC News' journalists in the four weeks after the lock-out.

By framing 7 April as "Day One" and not reporting these important aspects of the story, Patrick was cast as a villain that had, without provocation, locked out its entire work force days before the Easter break.

ABC journalists' commentary throughout this period, such as "Patrick chief Chris Corrigan seemed to have few regrets about getting rid of his entire work force," or "Chris Corrigan says his conscience isn't troubled", suggested they did not approve -- at a moral level -- of Patrick's actions.

ABC journalists provided MUA-friendly sources one-third more air time than Patrick and its supporters and reported the MUA's legal arguments more than twice as often as Patrick's.

ABC news was also more inclined to comment on Patrick's publicity tactics.  When Patrick began to successfully unload ships with non-union labour, for example, the event was referred to as a well stage-managed picture of productivity.  But when the MUA set up an aquatic picket, no reference was made to the obvious photo-op.

A successful propaganda campaign cannot be carried out without the complicity of the media.  In the case of the waterfront dispute, the MUA had a clear advantage over Patrick:  unions are overtly political, firms are not.

Therefore, unions are more likely to be the better propagandists.  This does not, however, get ABC news off the hook:  its lack of historical context enabled the MUA to characterise Patrick as the aggressor and the wharfies as victims.

In effect, MUA boss John Coombs won the propaganda war with such comments as "All these people want is a job so they can keep their families.  That's all they want."  ABC news reported little that undermined that image.

ADVERTISEMENT

The ABC needs to be more accountable

Also published in the Adelaide Review, May 1999

If it's our ABC, can we vote to sack the management?  And, if we can't, in what sense is it ours?

That is always the prime problem with public ownership -- the legal owners have no personal incentives to keep track of the value of "their" asset and control is exerted only through the intermediary agent of the elected government, which, due political pressures and breadth of its responsibilities, tends to be a comparatively poor commercial manager.

Actually, the situation is even worse than that, as the role of government as both regulator and producer generates a major conflict of interest.  Is the Minister for Education, in his role as regulator, likely to tell you that the Minister for Education, in his role as primary provider of schooling services, is doing a bad job?

These problems operate with a vengeance in the case of the ABC.  Any attempt by an elected government to enforce quality control on the ABC is going to be very easy to characterise as rampant political self-interest.  Any tendency within the wider media to be leery of outside scrutiny of fellow journalists further shields the ABC.

The ABC has also perfected a litany of stock responses to deflect any criticism about quality of its product -- specifically, allegations of bias.  If you criticise any particular program -- even prime-time TV News -- you are told one has to look at the whole of the ABC's coverage:  it apparently being perfectly reasonable to expect viewers to be consumers of everything the ABC produces.  So even serious studies of ABC's performance are implicitly expected to examine its entire output, or none.

While the ABC strenuously denies having a point of view, it is quick to claim that other people's having a point of view undermines the credibility of their criticism, no matter how well-documented their criticisms might be.  People are to be judged by their standpoints, not the quality of their work.  (Hmm, sounds like an ideological viewpoint to me ...)  Outsiders aren't independent -- unless they are commissioned by the ABC, in which case they must be independent.

The ABC can also count on a very loyal audience, for understandable reasons.  The ABC is a good relayer of quality British programs (eight out of the ABC's top 10 rating shows are British, 60 per cent of its top 100 programs are produced overseas), its ads are congenially located between, rather than within, programs and it deals with matters in a more in-depth and comprehensive way than is generally done on the commercial channels (though Nine's Sunday remains the best current affairs program on TV, mainly because it is more likely than the ABC to take genuinely iconoclastic viewpoints).

Managing director Brian Johns used all these defences in his reaction to my recently released study on ABC TV News (Sydney)'s coverage of last year's waterfront dispute from 8 April to 6 May 1998.  He informed us that the Board and the ABC's audience was well-satisfied with the coverage, that my study was less comprehensive than the report the ABC had commissioned from Professor Bell on Sydney TV News, 7.30 Report and radio coverage in response to allegations of bias (particularly from the Minister responsible for the ABC, Senator Alston), that my study came from "their point of view" and it added "no independent value".

As one of our main findings was the ABC coverage had been flawed because it failed, in 69 reports over 27 days, to put the waterfront dispute in context by asking the obvious question:  why did Patrick take the drastic step of locking out its entire union workforce?, this alleged satisfaction is highly dubious.  It is the old Jim Hacker (the hapless Minister in Yes Minister) problem when he wailed "how do I know what to ask, when I don't know what I don't know?"  How can the audience know, and thus judge, what they are not being told?

Prime-time TV News is, or should be, a stand-alone product.  It should give viewers, within the limitation of TV News as a medium, the crucial information on the news stories of the day.  ABC TV news provided over two and a half hours of coverage of the dispute, an enormous amount by normal news standards.

There was plenty of opportunity to give viewers the historical context:  indeed, ABC coverage was prepared to pursue historical coverage when -- in the case of the Dubai exercise or companies restructuring to facilitate mass sackings -- it put Patrick or the Government in a poor light.  Patrick had been subject to a massive campaign by the MUA in retaliation for challenging, via the leasing of Webb Dock to P&C Stevedores, the MUA's labour monopoly.  A campaign that had seen 43 days of strikes in the 96 days of 1998 that had passed by April 7.  Chris Corrigan himself described the lockout as "the desperate act of a desperate man".

This campaign was a non-subject in the ABC TV News (Sydney)'s coverage, despite MUA official Mick O'Leary being shown on the ABC's coverage saying (on the night of April 8) "when we started this over ten weeks ago ..."  But to examine the history would have cast doubt on the ABC's implicit casting of Patrick as the aggressor in the waterfront "war".

There were other signs of problems in the coverage:  despite opinion polls being evenly divided, ABC journalists were twice as likely to report opinion poll findings favourable to the MUA as to Patrick or the Government and were twice as likely to report MUA legal arguments as Patrick's.

The really worrying thing, however, is the ABC's concept of accountability.  The Bell Report is a very flawed exercise -- it is far shorter than our examination of the TV News coverage and contains far less quantitative data.  Almost the only empirical data it does contain is a count of "soundbites".

The Bell Report found that there was only a 6 per cent advantage to the MUA in soundbites.  The count failed to include various categories of people -- such as ordinary wharfies, and various third parties.  When one does a full count, the MUA had a 25 per cent advantage in soundbites and, when one takes duration into consideration -- since the pro-MUA soundbites averaged nine seconds to eight for the pro-Patrick/ Government soundbites -- pro-MUA speakers actually got 36 per cent more air time.  The ABC coverage was not balanced, particularly given that ABC journalists made 33 per cent more MUA-favourable statements than Patrick/ Government-favourable statements.

The ABC thus offered up as alleged "accountability" an intellectually slight and empirically flawed report released a mere three weeks after the end of its reporting period.  One is left wondering what the point of such a hasty exercise was, other than to provide the ABC with bureaucratic cover?  It looks very much like a "Sir Humphrey Appleby" exercise in avoiding accountability.  It is certainly not a satisfactory example of practising it.

But why should Johns worry?  The owners can't vote to sack the management, and the Government would be accused of blatant political self-interest if it did.  So, in exactly what sense is the ABC accountable for the $560 million dollars worth of taxpayer funds it gets each year?

ABC TV News and the 1998 Waterfront Dispute: Reporting or Barracking?

Backgrounder

In 1998, the ABC's coverage of the MUA/Patrick waterfront dispute -- the most contentious political issue of the year -- led to allegations of bias, most notably by Senator Richard Alston, the Minister responsible for the ABC.  In response, the ABC commissioned a report by Professor Philip Bell of the University of New South Wales.  The Bell Report, released on 27 May 1998, supposedly 'proved' that the ABC's coverage had not been biased.

Our Media Monitoring Unit has reassessed the ABC-TV 7.00pm Sydney News coverage (the same material as examined by Professor Bell) from 8 April to 6 May 1998.  Our findings cast doubt on Bell's conclusions and also on the rigour of his report.  In contrast to the Bell Report, our study of ABC News found:

• Members of the Maritime Union and its supporters received 36 per cent more air time than did Patrick, its supporters and the Federal Government.
• ABC News' journalists' commentary favoured the MUA and its supporters by 33 per cent.
• The MUA was favoured by more than two-to-one in journalists' commentary on the courtroom battle and on the public relations campaign.
• The MUA's legal arguments were presented by journalists more than twice as often as Patrick's.
• Journalists' commentary on the major players was more sympathetic in tone towards the MUA than Patrick or the Federal Government and often implied that the actions of Patrick and the Federal Government were unethical.
• ABC News largely ignored the historical context of the dispute and gave the misleading impression that the lock-out had been unprovoked.

In summary, ABC News provided distinctly more favourable coverage to the Maritime Union and its supporters than Patrick or the Coalition Government, contravening both its Code of Practice and its Editorial Policies, and raising serious concerns about the ABC's ability to hold itself accountable.

INTRODUCTION

The waterfront dispute was the biggest political news story of 1998.  When Patrick locked out its 1400 MUA waterfront workers on the night of 7 April, the stage was set for a story which would dominate newspaper headlines and TV news bulletins for more than a month.  From 8 April to 6 May 1998, ABC-TV's 7.00pm News (Sydney) reported on the waterfront dispute 27 out of 29 days, with the story leading the news bulletin 17 times;  a total of 69 news stories.

The story was ideal for television -- a cast of colourful characters, a developing plot with hints of sinister activities behind the scenes and, most importantly, conflict.  TV news, more than any other news medium, craves visible confrontation and the waterfront dispute provided plenty:  security guards, dogs, angry wharfies, clashes between union pickets, the police and truck drivers, farmers' protests.  In the minds of the media, the "war on the wharves" was a physical battle first and foremost;  the courts, the political fall-out and the commercial impact an interesting adjunct.  It was the "battle on the docks" that made great television.

THE WATERFRONT "WAR":  A METAPHOR TOO FAR

The "battle on the docks", comprised over one-third of reporters' commentary on the dispute between 8 April and 6 May 1998 (see Chart 1), and repeatedly referred to the dispute as a "war" or "battle".  For example, newsreader Michael Troy reported on 13 April:  "Tonight, the waterfront war continues, with an Australian family caught in the crossfire."  Or, on 20 April, reporter Jim Middleton said, "Simon Crean mounted the barricades in Sydney to rally the waterfront troops."

Chart 1:  ABC News (Sydney) Coverage of the Waterfront Dispute:
8 April-6 May 1998

It was a natural metaphor to adopt -- other media used it, as did participants (e.g. MUA official Rod Orreal on 21 April saying "the battle, I don't think has started yet ...").  But was the waterfront dispute a war in itself, or simply a crucial battle in an ongoing campaign?  If it was a just a battle, then what were the causes of the war, who started it, and why?  ABC News' coverage failed to explore the implications of its own preferred metaphor.

ABC News began using the war metaphor from the first day after Patrick's lock-out of the union late in the evening of 7 April.  On 8 April, Middleton referred to "the war on the wharfies" while ABC's Giulia Baggio reported that the MUA's John Coombs was going to call on "powerful international union friends to help fight his war".  The next day, newsreader Richard Morecroft introduced the news with, "Day Two of the Great Waterfront Battle, and Patrick has landed its non-union workforce on the nation's docks."

The war metaphor and the characterisation of 8 April as "Day One" of the "war" were ideas adopted almost immediately by ABC News' journalists and others in the media.  The trouble with metaphors is they can have their own dynamics:  in a "war", the natural inclination is to work out which side you should be barracking for.  In most wars, the "bad guy" is usually characterised as the aggressor, the side whose actions made the need for retaliatory action unavoidable.  By framing 8 April, after the lock-out of the evening of 7 April, as "Day One", Patrick was clearly cast as the aggressor, with the most obvious case being Middleton's reference to the "war on the wharfies".

Furthermore, ABC News' reports provided no context to Patrick's action, even though both sides were well aware that there were many events leading up to the 7 April lock-out.  For instance, MUA organiser Mick O'Leary was shown on ABC News saying, "when we started this, over ten weeks ago", referring to the MUA's campaign against the leasing of Webb Dock to P&C Stevedores.

The coverage of the "battle on the docks" followed a conventional pattern.  In week one, with the lock-out and successful replacement of the MUA members with non-union wharfies, Patrick was presented as winning (see Chart 2).  But, then again, "aggressors" tend to win the first round.

Chart 2:  Battle on the Docks:  ABC News (Sydney),
8 April-6 May 1998

As the pickets became increasingly organised and attempts to break them in Sydney and Melbourne failed in week two, the MUA was reported as winning.  As attention shifted to the courtroom battle in weeks three and four, far less attention was paid to the battle on the docks, and it was presented as a much more even struggle.

THE COURTROOM BATTLE

As the majority of legal decisions favoured the MUA, it was not surprising that the MUA appeared victorious in ABC News' coverage of the courtroom battle (see Chart 3).  But here again, the war metaphor distorted the reporting, as ABC News sought unambiguous "winners" and "losers".  Legal findings, particularly in civil cases, are often mixed, nuanced decisions, with each side gaining benefits and sustaining losses.  Battles, on the other hand, usually have victors, and ABC News' use of the war metaphor demanded its "victories".  This was most obvious in the reporting of the 4 May High Court decision, where the initial framing of the ABC News' report was very much in terms of a win for the MUA -- despite the High Court's own presentation of the decision being titled "Patrick's appeal upheld in part".  Later in the report, some of the complexity was alluded to, but only after the ABC had proclaimed the "winner".

Chart 3:  The Courtroom Battle:  ABC News (Sydney),
8 April-6 May 1998

ABC News' (Melbourne) newsreader Ian Henderson's nationally-broadcast interview (23 April) with Victorian Trades Hall spokesperson Leigh Hubbard after the decision of the Full Bench of the Federal Court best exemplified this tendency, with three out of four questions inviting Mr Hubbard to declare victory.  Even more stunningly, when Mr Hubbard, a union leader, wanted to talk about admitting the need for waterfront reform and its past history in answer to his second question, Henderson's follow-up question pushed the interview back toward the apparently much more important matter of declaring a union victory:

Q1:  Do the cheers say it all?

Q2:  From the union's point of view -- what is the appropriate next step for Patrick?

Q3:  Can we just get back to the judgment, was it as unequivocal as you would have liked?

Q4:  So, summing up, everything you wanted in this decision?

That the ABC reporter was more concerned to "declare victory" than the Victorian Trades Hall Council, and less interested in the historical context or the need for economic reform, suggested which side ABC-TV News was barracking for.

PUBLIC OPINION:  THE ART OF REPORTING POLLS

A Bulletin-Morgan poll, conducted two days after the lock-out, found that the public were almost evenly divided in their opinion of Patrick's full-frontal assault on the MUA.  Almost half (47 per cent) of Australian electors supported Patrick's move, whereas slightly less (45 per cent) opposed the dismissals.  One week later, support for Patrick had increased to 50 per cent while disapproval slipped to 39 per cent.  Public opinion concerning the Federal Government's support for Patrick was also mixed, rating 45 per cent on 9 April and increasing to 47 per cent by 15-16 April.  A more evenly divided public would have been difficult to conceive.

Yet, ABC News tended to report polling and public opinion as if the general public's sympathies were aligned with the Maritime Union.  Fifty-eight references to polls and public opinion were made over the course of the one-month battle.  Almost a third of these references were neutral in tone, simply identifying that a poll had been conducted or that the battle on the docks was also a battle for public opinion.  But, of comments that indicated support for one of the two warring parties -- either the MUA and the union movement or Patrick and the Coalition -- references to MUA/union support outnumbered references to Patrick/Coalition support by two to one.  Forty-seven percent of commentary on public opinion supported the MUA, whereas just 24 per cent supported Patrick or the Coalition (see Charts 4 and 5).

Chart 4:  Public Relations Campaigns:  ABC News (Sydney),
8 April-6 May 1998

Chart 5

For instance, ABC News reported a Bulletin-Morgan poll twice, when the results showed a loss of support for the government.  On 26 April, Angela Pearman reported, "The Federal Government has suffered an embarrassing slump in public opinion in the wake of union victories over the waterfront."  Then Fiona Reynolds reported, "In the court of public opinion, the Government appears to be losing.  This week's Bulletin-Morgan poll shows the Coalition's primary vote plummeted in one week, while Labor gained dramatically."  The next day, 27 April, ABC News again highlighted the poll result.  Richard Morecroft reported, "Back from Thailand, the Prime Minister is refusing to comment on a slump in the polls, possibly linked to the waterfront dispute.  The Opposition says it's a reflection on what he termed a 'malevolent government'."  Jim Middleton's story followed, in which he reported, "... the latest Morgan poll, taken last Wednesday and Thursday, [shows] his government slipping to 38.5 per cent, down 4.5 points in a week, while Labor has jumped to 42 per cent. ..."

In notable contrast, the Bulletin-Morgan poll showing increased support for the Coalition was relegated to the closing comments of Middleton's 19 April report, "The extent of that division [in society] is confirmed by the latest Morgan poll which shows support for the Government's role in the waterfront dispute has risen to 47 per cent, while opposition has slipped, but is still registering 42 per cent.  Jim Middleton, ABC News, Canberra."

EDITING HISTORY

Historical context is essential to understanding any conflict or dispute, whether it is a civil war or an industrial dispute.  Television news is often short on background information, constrained by the nature of the medium to allocate just two or three minutes to any one topic at a time.  In the case of the MUA/Patrick waterfront dispute, however, there were plenty of opportunities for television journalists to dig into the history books.  Night after night, particularly in the lead-up to the High Court decision of 4 May 1998, ABC News ran at least one story per day, even if there had not been any major developments.

Nonetheless, historical context was notably absent from ABC News' coverage, comprising less than 2 per cent of reporters' commentary (see Charts 1 and 6).  When the history of the waterfront was discussed, the focus was primarily on the Federal Government's knowledge of the abortive attempt to train ex-soldiers in Dubai.  ABC News did not provide a single report that examined the intransigent position of the MUA with regards to improving waterfront productivity or the bitter, acrimonious and rapidly deteriorating relationship that existed between Patrick and the MUA prior to the mass sackings.  In short, ABC News' journalists neither asked nor answered the question, "Why did Patrick feel compelled to take such an extraordinary move -- sacking its entire union workforce?"  Sound bites on both sides of the fence -- shouting "waterfront reform" or, alternatively, "union-busting" -- were the only answers provided.

For example, Richard Morecroft's script introduced the 9 April report, "The battle is being fought on more than one front.  Public opinion is being wooed by all sides.  The Prime Minister toned down his message today, blaming union leadership, rather than the rank-and-file, for the mass sacking of waterfront workers.  The Opposition Leader hit back, declaring the war on the wharves was all about union-busting rather than improving productivity on the docks."  The report showed the Prime Minister denying that the dispute was an "ideological, anti-union push, vendetta or crusade", followed by Jim Middleton's comment that the denial was "a far cry from the strident rhetoric less than 24 hours ago".  In the report, the Opposition was given the opportunity to decry union-busting, but the Federal Government was not shown discussing the need for waterfront reform.

The waterfront dispute was a fight about union power.  The battle, according to the media, began the night Patrick locked out its workforce;  in reality, the fight is as old as Australia's waterfront unions.  Obviously, Patrick and the Federal Government were intent on breaking the MUA's monopoly, but only after a long history of the Union abusing its monopoly power to maintain inefficient work practices (See Appendix 1:  History of the Waterfront Dispute).  Framing 8 April as "Day One" of the dispute gave credence to the Labor Party's cry of "union-busting".  Without a knowledge and understanding of the history of the waterfront, the Coalition's claims of "waterfront reform" were far less convincing.  The 7 April strike against the wharfies, as it appeared on ABC News in isolation and apparently without provocation, was easy to characterise as an attack on workers.  In this fashion, ABC News implicitly supported the Maritime Union and the ALP in its coverage of the waterfront dispute.

THE BELL REPORT

The ABC came under sustained criticism -- particularly from the Federal Coalition Government -- for its coverage of the MUA/Patrick dispute.  As part of its response, the ABC commissioned Professor Philip Bell, Foundation Chair, Media and Communications Unit of the University of New South Wales, to investigate the claims.  Professor Bell reported on the coverage by ABC TV 7.00pm News (Sydney) and the 7.30 Report of the dispute for the period 8 April to 6 May 1998.  His report is available at http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs.htm.  He also did a further report on radio coverage.

Much of Professor Bell's report is concerned with the difficulties in assessing balance.  His report notes that content analysis has uses in such assessment, but he did not use such analysis in his report.  He did provide some empirical data on appearances by non-journalists and the use of "headline" or "framing" sentences of items.  Since our Media Monitoring Unit's study only covered the 7.00pm News' coverage, the following comments apply only to those sections of Professor Bell's report which dealt with the 7.00pm News' coverage.

The following table sets number of "sound bites" for participants as reported by Professor Bell with the comparable figures from our study.

Sound Bites by Waterfront Dispute Participants, ABC TV 7.00pm News
8 April to 6 May 1998

Pro-Patrick/Federal Govt	Bell	Our study
	No.	No.	Seconds
			Total	Average
Total Patrick Stevedores	15	18	159	8.8
NFF (or other farmers)	10	10	87	8.7
(Federal) Coalition	57	58	422	7.3
Other pro-Patrick/Federal Govt	n.m.	16**	193	12.1
Total	82	102	861	8.4
Pro-MUA	Bell	Our study
	No.	No.	Seconds
			Total	Average
Total MUA	33	47*	437	9.3
Total Other Union	28	28	320	11.4
(Federal) ALP	26	26	220	8.5
Other pro-MUA	n.m.	26	194	7.5
Total	87	127	1171	9.2
Pro-MUA Advantage	6%	25%	36%	9%

n.m. = not mentioned.
* Includes ordinary MUA members.
** Includes Patrick administrators.

As we can see, Professor Bell's study reports a mere six per cent advantage to the MUA in sound bites, when there was actually a 25 per cent advantage.  The difference does not come from relatively minor differences in count, but because of the failure by Professor Bell to include entire categories -- MUA members other than officials and various "other" supporters of both sides (see page 13 for complete findings).

Surprisingly, Professor Bell's report did not provide any data on the duration of ABC News' sound bites, despite the fact that the first question the report says it will address is "How many times and for how long were representatives of the various parties or political spokespersons or expert commentators interviewed in each type of program?" (emphasis added).

When we do look at time allocated, we can see that pro-MUA sound bites averaged 9 per cent longer than those of their protagonists.  This, combined with their greater number of sound bites, gave them an overall advantage of 36 per cent in time.  Getting more than one-third more time over the period of a month's TV News coverage is a very significant advantage, and not "balanced" coverage in anyone's terms:  particularly when you have an advantage in both number of sound bites and length of sound bites.  It makes the statement from the Bell Report commenting on the sound bite data ring particularly hollow:

The total numbers of "sound bites" for each of the above groupings suggests that the news and 7.30 reporters/producers sought to balance, in quantitative terms, the presentations of various interests by including their representatives' own words in programs.  As "sound bites" are all usually only one sentence long, the "balanced" numbers suggest editorial fairness.

In fact, the full sound bite data suggest that the Sydney ABC TV 7.00pm News' reporters and producers failed to balance the sound bites of the various participants.  Furthermore, as most of the ABC News' commentary was provided by journalists, sound bite data are hardly enough in themselves to come to any conclusion about balance anyway (sound bites were 26 per cent of total time allocated to the dispute).

The Bell Report provided information on visual sequences -- something not part of our study -- which showed many more visual sequences for unionists and supporters than for any other group -- a total of 44 per cent of all such sequences, compared to 7 per cent for business representatives, including Patrick.  Given the context of the dispute, this is hardly surprising.  Pickets and protests naturally provide more visual sequences.  As Professor Bell noted:

given that the actions shown ... were frequently abusive or violent, or at least physically confrontational, high visibility may not have furthered the interests of the parties involved.

Later in his report, Professor Bell provides figures showing that, of the coverage showing violence or abuse, 79 per cent was violence or abuse by unionists but failed to include data on Patrick security guards even though there were a number of sequences showing or implying heavy-handedness.  Professor Bell also reported on issues of "negative agency" -- i.e., stories being framed in terms of loss or negative responsibility -- of "suppressed agency" -- i.e., framings where agency is not imputed -- and metaphors -- where Professor Bell made the point that metaphors of war, game or sporting contest were used -- but these discussions were either too elliptical or simply too obscure to add anything to our understanding.

With regard to his conclusion, that

analysis of the quantitative (sound bite and temporal) data, the verbal framing, and the dynamics of the interviews which rendered the "waterfront dispute" to ABC TV audiences, indicates that the producers and journalists gave a balanced coverage of the events and issues if one takes account of the total coverage over an extended period.

no "temporal" data on the News' coverage was given at all in his report and the next statement:

Almost mathematically equivalent exposure (as measured by "sound bites") was given to the principal protagonists.

is, as we have seen, not the case for the ABC News' coverage.  Professor Bell's conclusion discusses the visual presentation, casts doubt on whether any objective criteria are possible to determine balance in such matters, discusses aspects of the 7.30 Report coverage and suggests accusations of bias might reflect distaste for the increasingly "tabloid" (emotive, conflictual) nature of TV coverage.

When one considers the slightness of the content and the omissions in the presentation of basic sound bite data and visual sequences depicting violence or abuse, the Bell Report is clearly not an adequate exercise in accountability.  Yet the ABC made great claims for the Bell Report, saying, in a 27 May 1998 media release headlined "Independent Report Shows ABC Waterfront Coverage Balanced" that

The ABC today released an independent report showing that its television coverage of the waterfront dispute was professional and fair, representing the interests of the participants in a balanced way.

and making particular reference to sound bites being almost equal.  In short, the Bell Report was an intellectually weak effort.  Of course, the study was done in only three weeks, but that simply raises the question:  what was the point of such a hasty study -- particularly given the accusations that had been made and the importance of the issue to the public?  One can only surmise what sort of treatment such an empirically flawed study would receive from the ABC's own investigative programmes.

TV NEWS:  CAN IT EVER REPRESENT REALITY?

On 8 April 1998, the day after Patrick Stevedores locked out its entire MUA workforce, debate in the House of Representatives was, in a typical fashion, acrimonious and verbose.  The Hansard of the Parliamentary Debate from that day contains over 30 pages of debate, over a period of more than three hours.  ABC News' reporter Jim Middleton encapsulated the day's debate in a 2-minute 22-second report.

Middleton's report balanced, more-or-less, the sound bites representing the two opposing political parties.  The Coalition received 5 sound bites, totalling 29 seconds while the ALP received 3 sound bites, totalling 33 seconds (see Box 1).  But this superficial measure of balance overlooks the power of the journalist to sculpt and mould the report.  On any given day, a reporter has to choose eight or ten select quotes from a hundred or more potential sound bites.  The report will, in all likelihood, be accurate and truthful, but will it be representative?

Box 1: TV News:  Can It Ever Represent Reality? ABC News (Sydney) -- 8 April 1998 Richard Morecroft -- ABC TV Newsreader John Howard has called the move against the waterside workers a victory for ordinary Australians.  But, to the Opposition, it's an act of a military dictatorship.  The Prime Minister dodged Opposition claims that the mass sackings are illegal, but Labor says the move has fallen at the first hurdle. Jim Middleton -- ABC TV Reporter John Howard could not be happier with the turn of events, congratulating Peter Reith for his role in the war on the wharfies.  Now, the battle for the hearts and minds. Hon. John Howard -- Coalition (5 seconds) The ordinary men and women of Australia know that the waterfront has been rorted for years. Hon. Kim Beazley -- ALP (12 seconds) Those Australians will feel sympathy for the 1400 families this Easter who do not know what will happen to the breadwinner in those families. Jim Middleton It took the Government just 101/2 hours from the announcement of the sackings to have its fullyfledged redundancy package ready to go in Parliament.  The legislation sets up a government-owned Maritime Industry Finance Company, which will borrow up to $250 million, to be financed over five years by an industry levy of $6 per vehicle and $12 per container.  The redundancy package will be available to the sacked wharfies for up to 45 days. Hon. Kim Beazley (10 seconds) This Act is endorsing a process of unlawfully sacking Australian workers for one reason and one reason only and that is that they happen to be members of a union. Jim Middleton A claim ignored by Mr Howard and Mr Reith, answered only in the Senate. Sen. Richard Alston -- Coalition (4 seconds) I have no reason to think that Patricks have done anything of the sort. Hon. Bob McMullan -- ALP (11 seconds) The Federal Court, within 24 hours, has said that this outrageous line of action by the Government falls at the first hurdle. Jim Middleton The Prime Minister preferred rhetorical attack. Hon. John Howard (6 seconds) The Australian people know that he is the dummy of John Coombs of the Maritime Union of Australia. (The rest of the report assessed the Government's "battle plans" with no further commentary that expressed value judgements about Patrick, the MUA, the Coalition or the Opposition.)

On "Day One" (8 April 1998), Middleton's report on ABC News provided one, extremely brief comment from the Coalition explaining why they supported Patrick's move:  "The ordinary men and women of Australia know that the waterfront has been rorted for years."  The quote lasted 5 seconds.

On the other side, Middleton's report showed 33 seconds of the ALP's reaction to the "mass sackings" -- more than six times that allocated to the Government.  Mr Beazley was quoted saying, "Those Australians will feel sympathy for the 1400 families this Easter who do not know what will happen to the breadwinner in those families" and "This Act is endorsing a process of unlawfully sacking Australian workers for one reason and one reason only and that is that they happen to be members of a union."  Later, Mr McMullan was quoted, "The Federal Court, within 24 hours, has said that this outrageous line of action by the Government falls at the first hurdle."

The Coalition's position -- namely that Australia does not have an efficient, internationally competitive waterfront because of the MUA's intransigent attitude to waterfront reform -- was not given the opportunity to be voiced.  Instead, short clips, presented as "rhetoric" rather than substantive and credible arguments, were passed off as presenting the Government's side.

An examination of Hansard shows that Middleton, in effect, selected quotes that made the Government appear as if it had no valid reasons for supporting Patrick.  Had Middleton truly been concerned with balance, he might have selected Prime Minister Howard's comment that, "They [the MUA] are a group of people who are the industrial relations elite and the circumstances in which they now find themselves are a direct result of their own irresponsible conduct ... for years and years people have tried and governments have tried to deliver a more competitive and more productive waterfront."  Or Middleton might have used Mr Tim Fischer's argument that the far-flung "Port of Mozambique is performing at a better crane rate -- 25 containers an hour -- than the average of the ports of Australia."  Or he might have quoted Mr Alexander Downer's comment that "There is no doubt that Australia's notorious reputation for an inefficient waterfront is internationally known ... if anybody ever wanted any evidence for this proposition, they only have to look at the Far Eastern Economic Review editorial of 19 February 1998."

BATTLE OF THE BARRISTERS

ABC News journalists' commentary on legal arguments presented the MUA's case more than twice as often as Patrick's (49 MUA:23 Patrick).  For example, on 20 April, the Victorian Supreme Court granted Patrick what ABC's Giulia Baggio described as "an extraordinarily wide-ranging injunction", yet the reasons for Patrick's victory were not explained.  Patrick won this injunction (which was later narrowed to apply only to MUA members) because of evidence of significant violence and property destruction on the part of the MUA.  This evidence was not, however, discussed in Baggio's report;  instead the report focused on MUA supporters who were planning to break the law in what had become, according to the media, "a battle for civil rights".  The reasons for the Patrick "win" were not reported, perhaps due to the tendency to focus on Patrick and the Federal Government as aggressors.

WATERFRONT REFORM:  ECONOMIC
ARGUMENTS SAVED FOR LAST

The one area in which ABC News' coverage explicitly favoured Patrick and the Federal Government was economics.  Economic arguments about net crane rates, productivity and international best practice presented Patrick's and the Federal Government's arguments six times as often as the MUA's.

There are two important caveats to this finding, however:  first, economic arguments comprised less than 5 per cent of total journalists' commentary;  and second, during the first week of the dispute ABC News' reporters presented nearly as many arguments supporting the MUA as Patrick (see Charts 1, 6 and 7).

On 13 April, ABC News' Rod Smith reported, "Workers at Burnie are dismayed at being sacked after they achieved an Australian record for shifting containers and have met the Federal Government's targets for dockside efficiency."  And on 9 April, just two days after the union was locked out, Giulia Baggio reported, "The union claims the Fremantle [non-union] stevedores are only lifting one container an hour.  Patrick says it's more like 12.  Either way it certainly falls short of Peter Reith's benchmark of 25 an hour."

Economic arguments favouring Patrick were also heard during the first week, but were dismissed as unimportant.  On 12 April 1998, Michael Brissenden reported, "Patrick claims to have achieved better container lift rates ... than they had in the past with union labour.  At this stage, though, figures are meaningless -- it's public relations that matters."

Apart from week one, reporting on economic arguments overwhelmingly favoured Patrick and the Federal Government, particularly after the Productivity Commission's report was released.  For instance, on 5 May -- after the High Court decision -- Giulia Baggio reported, "the Union must now end years of mediocre productivity and make major concessions on redundancies and wages."

ASSESSING THE PLAYERS:  MOTIVES, TACTICS AND GOALS

TV news journalists rarely express an opinion -- television news is too abrupt, simplistic and visually oriented to allow much time for editorialising.  Occasionally, however, a journalist will use language that is particularly engaging, either in its intensity or tone.  These statements may arise simply to colour a report, but they may also reflect an underlying bias in the personal views held by the individual journalists.

While it is impossible to know a reporter's beliefs or motivation, the actual commentary can be scrutinised.  In Boxes 2 and 3, ABC journalists' comments that used emotive, charged or highly descriptive language have been identified and divided into two camps.  These comments either reflect a value judgement about the motives, tactics or goals of, or indicate support for, one of the major players in the dispute -- namely, the MUA, Patrick Stevedores or the Federal Government.

Box 2:  Pro-MUA Comments by ABC Reporters, ABC News (Sydney), 8 April-6 May 1998: The nation-wide lock-out and mass sacking of wharfies is, without a doubt, the most provocative attempt in the nation's history to introduce non-union labour onto Australian wharves. Patrick chief Chris Corrigan seemed to have few regrets about getting rid of his entire workforce. Congratulating Peter Reith for his role in the war on the wharfies. The Prime Minister preferred rhetorical attack. You've got an extra week now to fight Patrick.  How are you going to do that? Tonight ... wharfies locked out ... Patrick rolls out its new strike force. After the tumult and the shouting, today John Howard was playing the statesman. A far cry from the strident rhetoric less than 24 hours ago. Today, though it's not the rank-and-file but the leaders of the MUA who are to blame. Given the significance of the upheaval on the waterfront, the reaction of the peak union body, the ACTU, has been strangely muted. There's been plenty of rhetoric [by the ACTU] but little concrete action. The rage and frustration became too much to bear last night for sacked workers standing in the rain at Sydney's Darling Harbour. But for the sacked workers, their wives and children, there was nothing good about this public holiday spent manning the picket lines. It's a well stage-managed picture of productivity. The Cruise family has been deeply divided.  Darren, a father of two, lost his job in last Tuesday's lock-out. Chris Corrigan says his conscience is not troubled. The ACCC admits to sending observers out to picket lines around the country to make sure that legislation isn't breached. Wild scenes at Port Botany as police move against wharfies and their families. It was a David and Goliath struggle. Tim Fischer has no regrets about the Government's financial support for Patricks. A huge wave of relief and jubilation swept through picket lines from coast to coast. After the decision, Peter Reith was unrepentant. The public perception that the Government is involved in something dodgy in its zeal to clean up the waterfront. Somewhere in the midst of all these images in the matter of waterfront reform which, oddly, most people would agree has to come. It [the High Court decision] was met with a great roar of acclamation. ...

Box 3: Pro-Patrick or Pro-Government Commentary by ABC Reporters, ABC News (Sydney), 8 April-6 May 1998: Bricks were also thrown [by the MUA] in the most violent incident of the dispute so far. With backing like that, Chris Corrigan must be confident his waterfront revolution is firmly on course. That triggered a violent assault on the gates by the sacked workers. Demonstrators tried to get at a truck driver who, not surprisingly, panicked, and one of the demonstrators was knocked down by a following truck. Just as resolute is Patrick chief Chris Corrigan. Nothing will diminish his [John Howard's] determination to reform the waterfront. The Prime Minister is standing by his man. The Government is on a long-term winner. They [NSW farmers] are just as angry and determined as the MUA. Rhetoric aside, the union must now end years of mediocre productivity and make major concessions on redundancies and wages.

On ABC News, the tone of journalists' statements was more than twice as likely to support the MUA and the union pickets as Patrick or the Federal Government.  For example, ABC journalists commented that Patrick had "few regrets" and Peter Reith was "unrepentant".  Giulia Baggio reported, "Patrick chief Chris Corrigan says his conscience isn't troubled."  Jim Middleton stated, "Tim Fischer has no regrets about the Government's financial support for Patricks."  These comments suggest that Patrick and the Federal Government were involved in actions that were unethical or immoral in their campaign to improve waterfront productivity.

Further analysis of the pro-MUA journalists' commentary shows that the majority occurred during the first week of the dispute -- 8 to 15 April 1998.  During this time, ABC News framed the dispute in a manner highly favourable to the MUA -- characterising them as victims of a heinous and possibly illegal plot by Patrick and the Coalition to bust the Maritime Union.

TWO INTERVIEWS, TWO STANDARDS

On 8 April 1998, ABC News interviewed both Patrick's administrator and an MUA representative, live, on their 7.00pm newscast.  While this "balanced" the books in terms of equal time, these interviews were actually conducted in two very different manners -- the Patrick interview was highly antagonistic while the MUA interview was friendly and supportive.

Richard Morecroft, interviewing Patrick's administrator, Peter Brook, did not ask the obvious question -- why did Patrick "sack" its entire workforce, rather than continuing to bargain with the MUA?  Instead, Mr Morecroft focused on the technical definition of "sacking" in order to undermine Mr Brook, and, by extension, Patrick.

In contrast to Morecroft's hostile interviewing technique used with Patrick, Giulia Baggio's interview with the MUA's John Coombs was friendly, referring to Mr Coombs on a first-name basis, asking him how he was "feeling", how he was going to "fight Patrick", and what he thought of the company's claim that it didn't actually "sack" the workers.

INTERVIEW #1:  ABC's Richard Morecroft questions Peter Brook,
Patrick's Administrator, about the lock-out:

Q1:  Ah, now, Mr Brook, this does seem to be a very confusing situation.  Are the workers sacked or not?

Q2:  But when you say that the workers have not been sacked at any time, Patrick announced last night that they had been sacked.  Why did that happen?

Q3:  So, did Patrick have the right, last night to say that Patrick sacked its workforce?

Q4:  So, you didn't sack the workers and Patrick really shouldn't have been able to.

Q5:  So, as you see it, was this a significant victory today for the Union in the Federal Court?

Q6:  But does it effectively change whatever strategy you had in mind, or Patrick had in mind, in terms of the union workforce it's trying to deal with?

Q7:  And just very briefly, do you expect the wharfies to turn up for work tomorrow, if they haven't been "sacked"?

INTERVIEW #2:  ABC's Giulia Baggio questions John Coombs,
chief of the Maritime Union of Australia, about the lock-out:

Q1:  John, how are you feeling about the court injunction?

Q2:  You've got an extra week now to fight Patrick.  How are you going to do that?

Q3:  What do you think of the company's claim that it didn't actually "sack" the workers?

Q4:  John, have we seen any non-union labour yet enter any of the ports around Australia apart from Fremantle?

CONCLUSION

ABC News' presentation of the MUA/Patrick waterfront dispute followed a ready-made "script":  union versus boss, labour versus capital.  ABC journalists -- many of whom are staunch unionists, post-1960s humanities graduates, members of the "Age of Aquarius" generation of Vietnam War protests -- have many influences that made this the natural script to adopt.  The question at the heart of the dispute, however, was not adequately addressed.

The central issue of the waterfront dispute -- whether a union can so abuse its position that an employer has the right to dismiss its union employees -- was seldom addressed by ABC News, and therefore could not be adequately discussed.  The MUA was a fervent, long-standing opponent of freedom of association, insisting on its labour monopoly and hence its campaign against the leasing of Webb Dock to P&C Stevedores.  Nor was Patrick a defender, deciding it no longer wished to deal with the MUA at all.  Yet, this question was central because only if the answer was "yes" could Patrick's action be legitimate.  Without providing the full historical context of the dispute, this question could not even be posed.

According to the ABC's Annual Report 1997-98, the waterfront dispute was "the year's most contentious issue" with the ABC receiving 2,729 calls about its coverage.  ABC News is the flagship of the ABC's news and current affairs programmes.  It is -- particularly in a story with so much coverage -- a "stand alone" product, giving its viewers, within the constraints of TV news as a medium, the crucial information on the news stories of the day.  The ABC's Editorial Policies (April 1998) sets the following standard for its news and current affairs programming:

Balance will be sought through the presentation as far as possible of principal relevant viewpoints on matters of importance.  This requirement may not always be reached within a single program or news bulletin, but will be achieved within a reasonable period.

This is a standard that ABC News (Sydney) conspicuously failed to perform in its coverage of the waterfront dispute.  It failed to balance the principal relevant viewpoints and persistently failed to provide its viewers with the full context of the dispute to enable them to make an informed judgement.  Exhibiting inadequacies throughout the dispute, the imbalance was most notable in the first week -- presumably the time when initial reactions were at their strongest and reporters might have been inclined to react in terms of their own pre-conceptions.  But that was also the time when the counter-balancing influences of journalistic professionalism and management needed to be most alert.  On the evidence, neither factor operated as strongly as it should have.

But the failure was greater than that.  Confronted with what was, we can now see, well-grounded accusations of bias, the ABC responded with the Bell Report.  This hastily assembled and intellectually slight report provided little empirical evidence and claimed that sound bite coverage was balanced, when it was not.  The ABC then trumpeted this report, without bothering to seriously examine its contents, as "proof" that its coverage was unbiased.  This exercise turned into a performance in avoiding accountability worthy of Sir Humphrey Appleby and Yes Minister.

ABC News' coverage of the waterfront dispute, as presented in Sydney between 8 April and 6 May 1998, was not balanced either in its presentation of the principal viewpoints or its presentation of the central issues.  ABC's management, however, responded to charges of bias in a manner that suggests disturbing cynicism towards the public whose taxes pay 80 per cent of its revenue.  ABC's performance with the Bell Report suggests that its sense of accountability and its accountability procedures both need to be re-evaluated.

The Waterfront Dispute:  Summary Data
ABC News (Sydney) Reporters' Statements, 8 April-6 May 1998

	Neutral	Pro-MUA	Pro-Patrick/ Government	Total
Battle on the Docks	257	108	122	487	37%
The Courtroom Battle	122	76	36	234	18%
Strategic Alliances	32	100	43	175	13%
Commercial Impact	91	3	4	98	7%
Federal and State Politics	35	34	29	98	7%
Legal Arguments	4	49	23	76	6%
Economic Arguments	17	6	37	60	5%
Negotiations	30	3	4	37	3%
Historical Context	8	15	2	25	2%
Other	16	7	1	24	2%
Total Statements	612	401	301	1314	100%

ABC News (Sydney) Sound Bites on the Waterfront Dispute

Pro-MUA or Critical of Government/Patrick

	Seconds	No.
MUA	437	47
Federal Opposition	220	26
ACTU	156	18
Victorian Trades Hall Council	104	3
MUA supporter	51	10
NSW Premier	40	5
Former politician	22	2
International Transport Workers Federation	18	2
Chris Corrigan's brother	16	1
Fynwest	15	2
Federal Court	21	3
Longshore Union	12	1
Anglican Church	12	1
Council of Civil Liberties	11	1
Australian Workers' Union	9	1
Meat Workers' Union	9	1
Trades & Labour Council	7	1
Vehicle worker	6	1
Japanese Unionists	5	1
Total Statements	1171	127

Pro-Patrick/Government or Critical of MUA

	Seconds	No.
Federal Government	422	58
Patrick Stevedores	159	18
Patrick administrators	114	6
NSW Farmers' Association	31	3
Farmers	28	4
Non-union labour	25	4
ACCC	20	2
NFF	19	2
Chamber of Commerce	10	1
Truck owner/operator	9	1
United Graziers' Association	9	1
WA Premier	8	1
NSW Transport Association	7	1
Total Statements	861	102

Non-Aligned Commentary

	Seconds	No.
Colonial State Bank	40	4
Liner Shipping Services	34	3
NSW Police	14	2
HSBC	26	2
Quadrant Polls	24	2
Access Economics	22	2
Academic	21	2
P&O	18	3
Universal Supplies	18	2
Victoria Police	15	2
ACNielsen	15	1
NSW Chamber of Commerce	14	1
NSW Police Union	13	2
Business representative	13	2
Tasmanian Government	12	1
Australian Shipowners' Assn	10	1
WA Police	10	1
Newcastle Mayor	9	1
Australian Meat Council	9	1
Meat Worker	9	1
Unidentified source	8	2
Toyota	8	1
Importer	7	1
Newcastle Stevedores	7	1
Queensland Premier	5	1
Fremantle Port Authority	5	1
Total Statements	386	43

---

APPENDIX 1:  HISTORY OF THE 1998
PATRICK/MUA WATERFRONT DISPUTE

Background

The Australian waterfront has a history of conflict and violence.  The "Painters and Dockers" -- a predecessor union to the MUA ⁽¹⁾ -- was the most notoriously criminal union in Australian history.  During the Second World War, the communist-led Waterside Workers were famously hostile to the war effort prior to Nazi Germany's attack on the USSR. ⁽²⁾  Worker-company relations were poor, even appalling -- the system of the "pick-up", where workers queued in hopes of getting a shift (dominated by the "bulls", the strongest workers capable of working 24-or even 48-hour shifts) was replaced by rostered gangs only during the War. ⁽³⁾

The Maritime Union of Australia was created by the amalgamation of the Seamen's Union and the Waterside Workers' Federation in 1993.  Access to work had often been "inherited" from male relative to male relative, making for a tight-knit culture steeped in old battles.  Over the years, the stevedoring companies had surrendered many management prerogatives to the union's labour monopoly.  The waterfront was a "closed shop", and the union controlled the roster (who was going to work), shifts (when work was done) plus all interaction between the companies and workers.  Companies could not talk with an employee unless a union representative was present, they could not send correspondence to employee's homes, supervisors could not attend meetings between management and union members, and all sites had automatic daily visits from a union official. ⁽⁴⁾

This power had wider use.  Discreet phone calls suggesting that firms might find problems moving their products or receiving supplies unless they saw things more the union way had been a part of the Australian industrial relations scene for many years. ⁽⁵⁾  Little wonder that ACTU Secretary Bill Kelty said that a successful attack on the MUA would "rip the heart" out of Australian unionism (ABC-TV News, Sydney, 9 April 1998).

The 1998 Waterfront Dispute

The labour monopoly of the MUA supported a stevedoring market dominated by the duopoly of P&O and Patrick, who controlled about 95 per cent of national container lifts. ⁽⁶⁾  The trick for the MUA was to extract maximum "rents" from its labour monopoly without driving either stevedoring company to desperation or out of business -- the latter having previously happened on the British docks.  Patrick -- lacking the shipping links of P&O and having invested $300 million in new equipment since 1995 ⁽⁷⁾ -- was the duopoly member with most reason to be concerned about productivity.  By 1998, Patrick was claiming annual losses of $8 million in its stevedoring operations with labour costs absorbing 60 per cent of revenue. ⁽⁸⁾

The Hawke Government had overseen the 1989-92 Waterfront Industry Reform Authority (WIRA) process, on which $165 million of taxpayers' funds had been spent to fund $419 million worth of redundancies that reduced the waterfront workforce by 4,000. ⁽⁹⁾  Average net hourly crane rates across the five main ports had improved from 12 in December 1989 to 23 in June 1997. ⁽¹⁰⁾  By April 1998, there were about 3,000 waterside workers left in container port terminals. ⁽¹¹⁾  Patrick employed 1,325 MUA members full-time and 450 as part-time or casuals. ⁽¹²⁾  The process, however, had not changed any of the basic dynamics of the waterfront -- according to The Economist (18 April 1998) "the Maritime Union ... knows as much about featherbedding and restrictive practice as about handling cargo".

By 1998, Patrick's wharfies were averaging 18 lifts an hour, far below international best practice.  Ports like Singapore and Nagoya achieved container lift rates per terminal employee of over 3,000 a year;  ports such as Hamburg, Pusan, Los Angeles, Port Klang and Tilbury attained 900-1,500 a year;  yet Australian ports managed in the 500-800 range with poor reliability -- over one-fifth of ships calling at the five major Australian ports were delayed for four hours or more. ⁽¹³⁾

The MUA's dismal productivity record flowed directly from the wholesale replacement of management prerogatives with union prerogatives.  Monopoly power also gave MUA members very generous wages and conditions.  Full-time permanent employees of Patrick had average annual incomes of $70,000-$110,000 for 29-hour weeks, five weeks' annual leave with a 27.5 per cent annual leave loading, the same loading on long service leave, 10 days' annual sick leave which could be cashed in, a supplementary right to visit the doctor on full pay not counted against sick leave, two weeks' additional leave every 15 weeks taken as rostered days off, company-sponsored sick leave insurance to "top-up" social security payments, clothing, laundry and telephone allowances plus subsidised meals.  Patrick estimated its managers spent 80 per cent of their time attending to industrial relations issues;  and it was making a loss.  In the on-going negotiations preceding the lock-out, the MUA position was for a 15 per cent pay increase plus other benefits in return for an increase in productivity of 6 per cent to 19 container movements per hour. ⁽¹⁴⁾

With the passage of the Workplace Relations Act -- which created a non-award stream of employment through the Australian Workplace Agreements that allowed for the possibility of new terms of employment in an industry -- and the re-instatement of the secondary boycott legislation of the Trade Practices Act -- restricting any dispute to the primary disputants -- an opportunity was created to challenge the MUA's labour monopoly.  At least two groups looked seriously at putting together a non-MUA workforce.  One group made an abortive attempt to train ex-soldiers in Dubai.  Another, organised through the National Farmers' Federation, looked at breaking into the stevedoring market with a non-union workforce.  This eventually came together with P&C Stevedores going into operation from late January 1998 at Webb Dock in Melbourne. ⁽¹⁵⁾

With negotiations stalled, Patrick making a loss on its stevedoring business and P&C Stevedores in operation and showing that labour supply on the docks was eminently contestable, the MUA chose 6 April as the day to begin a seven-day strike at Port Botany.  Patrick had already experienced 43 days of strike action and 16 days of over-time bans across five ports in the 96 days of 1998 that had passed. ⁽¹⁶⁾  Patrick responded by locking out its entire MUA workforce from all its docks on the evening of 7 April 1998, offering redundancies ranging from $41,000 to $239,000 per person and bringing in an entirely non-union workforce.  In the words of Chairman Chris Corrigan, Patrick "withdrew its capital".  In terms of the Patrick/MUA dispute as a seminal public confrontation, the evening of 7 April might have been "Day One".  In reality, it was the culmination of a long series of events.

---

APPENDIX 2:  UNDERSTANDING INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES

There are normally two arenas in which industrial disputes are played out.  The first is the workplace itself, and involves the relations between the workforce and management.  If these relations are bad, there is a clear opportunity for the union -- in pursuit of members, income and power -- to move in and become the intermediary between workers and management.  If relations are good, the union runs the risk of being completely excluded -- over 75 per cent of private-sector employees are not members of any union ⁽¹⁷⁾ and about 90 per cent of Australian firms do not employ any unionised workers. ⁽¹⁸⁾

The second arena is that of the industrial tribunals and the courts.  The issues here are highly technical, difficult even for full-time practitioners to follow.  The unions have an inherent advantage -- as full-time operators before the tribunals -- over companies, who typically have very limited acquaintance, understanding or expertise in this highly technical area.  (Larger companies, able to afford expensive expertise, have an advantage over smaller companies.)  The better relations are between management and workers, the greater the incentive the unions have to move any dispute before the tribunals -- this is where the union has the greatest advantage.  The workers themselves are excluded from such proceedings as the industrial relations system presumes that workers are represented by the unions.

Sometimes disputes go to the third arena -- the "court" of public opinion.  Often this is of little or no importance, with minimal journalistic attention being paid to a dispute.  Occasionally, however, an industrial dispute can loom very large in public affairs, with the public battle absorbing huge amounts of media effort.  Once again, unions have certain inherent advantages:  the operation of unions is explicitly political, rather than commercial, which means that union spokespeople are often more alive to, have greater understanding of, and are more skilled in, public relations than their opponents.  Companies' profit motive generates a presumption of self-interest, while unions draw on claims about protecting workers' rights and a higher moral purpose.  Furthermore, unions can generate ready "photo ops" or TV footage, often involving considerable numbers of "ordinary" Australians.

Not all advantages lie with unions, however:  strikes are inherently disruptive;  violence on picket lines can easily provide negative images;  unions are easily portrayed as attempting to stop people going about their normal business;  there is significant antipathy to strikes and picketing, and some antipathy to unions, among the general public.

In the case of the waterfront dispute, there was effectively no direct relationship at all between Patrick's management and Patrick's workforce.  The MUA acted as the exclusive intermediary between the workforce and management (see Appendix 1:  History of the 1998 Patrick/MUA Waterfront Dispute).  As a result, Patrick had nothing to lose from resorting to the full technical use of the law in the pursuit of its commercial objectives.  Of course, the lack of contact between Patrick and its workforce -- insisted on by the MUA -- gave the lock-out a very different context than it would have had in more normal workplaces.  Without information on how unusual circumstances were on the waterfront -- information that only the press could provide -- public outrage at the lock-out was understandable as ordinary "wage slaves" interpreted events in terms of their own lives.  Similarly, manoeuvring within the very specific constraints of the Australian IR system can only be properly judged by the public if the press provides context.  This puts the press in a powerful position -- it can have its biggest effect simply by omitting crucial information.

METHODOLOGY

ABC News' (Sydney) reports on the waterfront dispute between 8 April and 6 May 1998 were assessed according to the frequency and duration of sound bites by various participants, and the content of journalists' commentary.

Sound bites were divided into three camps according to which party the source, either explicitly or implicitly, supported:  the Maritime Union of Australia, Patrick Stevedores or the Federal Government, and non-aligned sources.  Sources were assessed according to their commentary as presented on ABC News (Sydney) from 8 April and 6 May 1998.

Journalists' comments were classified according to 12 main categories, 24 sub-categories and a record of whether the commentary presented either an advantage to, or the position of, one of the major players -- the MUA and its supporters, Patrick or the Federal Government.  Commentary on the battle on the docks, the courtroom battle and the public relations campaigns was coded according to which side was presenting as "winning" or "losing" the various battles.  Commercial impact, legal arguments, economic arguments, historical context, Federal Government involvement, political fall-out, personal anecdotes, negotiations and other miscellaneous comments were coded according to which side's position was presented or whether the statement reflected in a neutral, positive or negative manner on either the MUA or its supporters, or Patrick or the Federal Government.

Journalists' commentary was also assessed for "tone":  emotionally-charged or highly descriptive statements that reflects, implicitly or explicitly, a value judgement about the motives, tactics or goals of, or indicates support for, one of the major players -- the MUA, Patrick Stevedores or the Federal Government.  These are statements by the journalists themselves, not paraphrases of others' commentary.  As "tone" is defined according to the nuances of the English language, and therefore not as objective as other sections of this report, all statements assessed within the category are presented in full.

---

ENDNOTES

1.  The creation of the MUA meant that the Federated Ships' Painters and Dockers Union was deregistered in December 1993.

2.  Hewat, Tim, The Century of Brawn, paper delivered at XIXth Conference of the H.R. Nicholls Society, 1 August 1998.

3.  Hewat, ibid.  Billy Hughes managed to combine the positions of Prime Minister and President of the Waterside Workers' Federation (a position he held for 16 years).

4.  Patrick Website:  http://www.patrick.com.au.

5.  Statement made by former importer at H.R. Nicholls Conference, 2 August 1998.

6.  O'Neil, Stephen, Outline of the Waterfront Dispute, Current Issues Brief, Department of the Parliamentary Library, 12 May 1998, page 5, available at http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/cib/1997-98/98cib15.htm#Waterfront

7.  O'Neil, ibid;  Patrick Website, op.cit.

8.  Patrick Website, ibid.

9.  O'Neil, op.cit., page 4.

10.  Productivity Commission, International Benchmarking of the Australian Waterfront, April 1998, page 124, available at http://www.pc.gov.au/pcpubs/benchmrk.html.  The annual improvement in crane rates slowed from 3.8 per cent from December 1989 to September 1992, to 0.7 per cent a year over the period September 1993 to June 1997, with average rates actually falling from September 1993 to December 1995.

11.  O'Neil, op.cit., page 4.

12.  Patrick Website, ibid.

13.  Productivity Commission, op.cit., pages xxiii-xxiv, 13, 16, 129, 136.

14.  Patrick Website, op.cit.

15.  Interview with Paul Houlihan available from H.R. Nicholls Society.

16.  Patrick Website, op.cit.

17.  ABS, Trade Union Members, Cat. No. 6325.0;  Employee Earnings, Benefits and Trade Union Membership, Australia, Cat. No. 6310.0.

18.  Commonwealth Office of Small Business, Business Longitudinal Study.

Healthy Concern a Smokescreen for Pushing a Political Point

Disease has always been used as a political weapon.  In many traditional societies, people who suffer misfortune tend to blame their enemies, using serious illness as an excuse to clobber those whom they dislike for other reasons.

Things are not so different in our own society.  Some conservative Christians see AIDS as a punishment for the homosexuality that they loathe.  And many people believe that certain kinds of cancer are almost solely the fault of multi-national corporations -- tobacco companies, chemical manufacturers, and the like.

There can be no denying that smoking greatly increases the risk of lung cancer, as well as other diseases.  But anti-smoking advocates take their battle against the tobacco companies much further than this, hoping to inflict such damage on them through litigation that the whole industry will go under.  Smokers are portrayed as victims, who bear little personal responsibility for their habit, which is mainly the fault of the unscrupulous corporations.  And all of us are supposedly at risk from passive smoking.

The people who take up these campaigns present themselves as altruists whose only concern is better public health.  For some of those involved this may be true.  But the passions are often highly selective, suggesting that other motivations are even more important.

Disease that can be sheeted home to big business, or industry in general, no matter how tenuous the grounds, arouses all the enthusiasm.  Research pointing to links with other activities tends to be played down, particularly if these activities are ones that the left-leaning cultural elites wish to defend.  A sorry example of this kind of selectivity is the fate of recent research suggesting that women who have had induced abortions run a higher risk of contracting breast cancer.

The basis for thinking that this link is more than just an unlikely coincidence lies in the already-accepted role of estrogen in breast cancer.  During the first stages of pregnancy, estrogen levels build up, stimulating the production of undifferentiated breast cells, the cells which are the most vulnerable to cancer.  In the last trimester of pregnancy other hormones cause most of these vulnerable cells to become differentiated into milk-producing cells.

Spontaneous abortions -- miscarriages -- do not have the same degree of risk, because women who suffer miscarriages have usually undergone a pregnancy in which lower levels of estrogen have been generated.

Since the first suggestion of a link was noted by Japanese researchers in 1957, 25 out of the 31 studies that have been completed have shown some relationship between breast cancer and induced abortion.  These studies have been carried out in many different countries, and include women of Asian, African and European ancestry.

In 1996, Americans Professor Joel Brind, an endocrinologist, and Dr Vernon Chinchilli, a bio-statistician, together with two other colleagues, combined the data from the 23 studies then available, and analysed the results.  Their conclusions were presented in a respected British medical publication, the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

Professor Brind's "meta-analysis" showed that women who had an induced abortion before any subsequent births were 50 per cent more likely to develop breast cancer, while women who aborted a later pregnancy after first giving birth to a child had a 30 per cent higher likelihood of the cancer.

These figures are not high enough to indicate a massive increase in risk, but they are sufficient to warrant counselling women who are considering an abortion about the possibility of danger.  Indeed, the figures show an equal -- or even stronger -- relationship than the widely publicised studies linking secondhand smoke to lung cancer and heart disease.

In 1991, when American medic Stanton Glantz carried out a meta-analysis of ten studies and found that non-smoking partners of smokers were 30 per cent more likely to die of heart disease than other non-smokers, the journal Cancer Weekly reported it as "the first clear statement that passive smoking causes heart disease".  Dr Glantz, who is currently on an anti-tobacco visit to Australia, claimed that it showed the need for strong legislation to restrict smoking in public places.

But the people who are gung-ho about the hazards of passive smoking are remarkably cautious when it comes to the evidence linking breast cancer and abortion.  They seem to fear that anything which might reflect poorly on the safety of abortion will give aid and comfort to the wrong kind of people.

When it came to discussing Professer Brind's work, media commentators who had earlier lauded Dr Glantz suddenly discovered serious problems with any findings based on meta-analysis.  Others, including senior cancer researchers, made the questionable claim that the studies Brind analysed suffered from "recall bias", with healthy women supposedly more reluctant to reveal a personal history of abortion than women who had been diagnosed with breast cancer.

Critics also noted that Brind is closely associated with the anti-abortion movement.  This is true.  But his co-researcher Vernon Chinchelli is strongly in favour of women's freedom to choose whether or not they have an abortion, and there was no disagreement between the two about any aspect of their work.

Many of the other researchers who have reported a relationship between abortion and breast cancer similarly support women's right to choose.  Yet when the Endeavour Forum, an Australian "pro-life" organisation, wrote to state cancer societies late last year urging that women contemplating an abortion should be warned about the link, the Queensland Cancer Fund's response was to suggest that those who had found such a link were biased.

Certainly, anti-abortion groups are using the breast cancer threat in their propaganda.  But whether abortion should be legal or not is a moral issue.  Even if the risk of the operation was considerably greater than it now appears, on its own this would be insufficient grounds for banning it.

Rather, people need to recognise that real choice means providing women with the best information currently available to assist their decision.  Perhaps activists will only be willing to publicise such information if multi-national corporations take over the abortion industry.

ADVERTISEMENT