What is this guidance note about?
In accordance with the ABC's Conflict of Interest Policy and External Work Guidelines [internal links for ABC staff only], ABC workers must obtain prior written approval before undertaking any external work. The ABC will only approve external work requests where it is satisfied there is no risk of a conflict of interest, or steps are taken to appropriately mitigate the risk of a conflict. Conflicts of interest relating to editorial content are of particular concern.
This note provides specific guidance on the editorial impact of paid and unpaid external work carried out by anyone involved in creating content for the ABC.
It does not cover non-editorial conflicts of interest associated with external work, or other editorial conflicts not associated with external work. Workers seeking information about these should have regard to the Conflict of Interest Policy and Editorial Policies respectively.
Who is covered by this guidance note?
This note relates to anyone involved in producing or contributing to ABC content, including contractors, freelancers and people working for external production companies. Clearly, not all of those categories will be treated the same, and decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis. Outside contributors who work occasionally or intermittently for the ABC will have a wide range of external commitments which can usually be easily managed. The more someone is seen as representing the ABC and its values, the higher the risks involved. Potential editorial conflicts must be referred to your manager, or (for external parties) to the commissioning producer or ABC manager you are working with.
The note should be read and understood by anyone seeking to undertake external work; anyone in a position to approve or reject external work requests; and anyone involved in contracts which restrict or allow external work.
Which editorial standards are relevant?
The guidance in this note assists in interpreting and applying the following standards in section 1 of the Editorial Policies:
1.3 Ensure that editorial decisions are not improperly influenced by political, sectional, commercial or personal interests.
1.4 External activities of individuals undertaking work for the ABC must not undermine the independence and integrity of the ABC's editorial content.
What is external work?
For the purposes of this guidance note, external work is any work, paid or unpaid, conducted for other organisations or on a self-employed basis. Examples include:
- Any work for a company, organisation or government agency;
- Writing a book;
- Delivering a speech (excluding, of course, personal speeches on social or family occasions);
- Moderating or participating in a panel discussion;
- Acting as MC (Master of Ceremonies) for an event;
- Creating editorial content for another organisation, including news, opinion articles, or social media content;
- Involvement in a company or organisation as a board member, patron, ambassador, etc;
- Making official comment on behalf of a company or organisation on any public platform;
- Voluntary or charity work.
What are editorial conflicts of interest?
A conflict of interest is where your non-ABC interest, such as a commercial, personal or political activity, competes with your ABC interest, i.e. your ABC work.
There are several types of conflict of interest associated with external work. A real conflict of interest is when the performance of your ABC work and work outside the ABC come into direct conflict. A potential conflict of interest is where the performance of your ABC work and work outside the ABC could come into conflict in the future, or through a likely change of circumstances. A perceived conflict of interest is where there is a perception by others that there is, or could be, a conflict of interest between your ABC work and your external work.
Editorial conflicts of interest are those which have a real, potential or perceived impact on editorial content or decisions. They pose serious risks to the ABC and its reputation.
Why do they matter?
The trust and respect of the community depend on the ABC's commitment to editorial independence and integrity. Editorial conflicts of interest associated with external work have the potential to significantly damage this trust.
Audiences rightly expect the ABC and its workers to make independent editorial decisions, without improper influence from outside interests. They expect ABC content to adhere to the highest standards of integrity, and ABC workers to demonstrate professional integrity. If not properly managed, editorial conflicts can undermine a worker's perceived integrity, the integrity of the content they contribute to, and perceptions of the ABC's editorial independence.
For example, if a journalist reports on calls to tighten bail laws for people charged with domestic violence offences, and they are also an ambassador for a domestic violence victim support charity, audiences may wonder if their charity work had any bearing on their approach to the story, and if all editorial decisions were appropriately independent. Or if an entertainment producer moonlights for a talent agency, this would raise questions about talent selection decisions for all ABC programs they produce.
Who is responsible for managing editorial conflicts of interest?
Workers and managers share responsibility for navigating the risks associated with external work and protecting the ABC's editorial independence and integrity.
Worker responsibilities
In accordance with the External Work Guidelines, workers are required to obtain prior written approval from the relevant Divisional Director (or their delegate) before undertaking any external work (other than voluntary or charitable work where there is no actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest), using the External Work Approval Request Form.
Before filling out the form, workers should carefully consider all conflict of interest risks that might arise, and what steps can be taken to manage and mitigate those risks. It is a good idea to discuss the potential editorial implications with your manager at this stage, and seek advice from the Editorial Policies team if needed.
When filling out the form, it is important to provide as much detail as possible, addressing each of the risk factors as outlined below. It is better to be upfront about all possible risks, even if you are confident they can be managed easily. This enables your manager to accurately assess the risk level and ensures there are no surprises.
Manager responsibilities
Managers are responsible for reviewing and endorsing external work requests, and divisional directors are responsible for approving them. Managers should consider all information provided by the worker and undertake the risk assessment process outlined below. They should keep records of all decisions as they may later be required to explain why a request was approved or rejected. Their primary obligation in assessing each request is to protect the ABC's editorial independence and integrity.
Shared responsibilities
Once an external work request has been approved, workers and managers are responsible for enacting any agreed mitigation. For ongoing external work, workers and managers should monitor the situation to ascertain if circumstances have changed. The risk level of external work can change over time, such as if an issue becomes more or less contentious within the community, or an organisation becomes embroiled in a scandal.
How do we decide if an external work request can be approved?
Workers considering applying for external work, and managers considering external work requests, should undertake a risk assessment process to determine the level of editorial risk. This involves taking into consideration several factors, including:
- The role of the worker at the ABC
- The nature of the external work
- Who the external work is for
- Payment or other compensation
These are explained in more detail below, with examples of what would be considered low, medium, high, very high and extremely high risk.
The role of the worker at the ABC
This is the first and most important consideration for any external work. The potential for compromising the ABC's editorial independence varies according to the role that person has at the ABC.
A key consideration in this risk category is proximity to the ABC. Risk levels will differ for employees, contractors, actors, presenters, co-producers, and employees/contractors of co-producers. (In some cases, such as actors, the ABC does not seek to restrict outside activities.) Nonetheless, high profile presenters are often seen as faces or voices of the ABC regardless of whether they work directly for us or are contracted to a co-production company.
The duration and permanence of someone's engagement by the ABC is another relevant consideration. Someone presenting a one-off documentary is less likely to be regarded as a representative of the ABC than someone presenting an ongoing weekly or nightly program.
The table below provides a general guide to risk level based on role:
| Role of the worker | Risk level |
|---|---|
| High profile on-air presenters, reporters and editorial leaders | Very high risk |
| Workers involved full-time in creating, managing, editing, curating or moderating content for factual or news and current affairs programs and platforms | High risk |
| Regular part-time contributors with an ongoing relationship creating content for the ABC | Medium to high risk |
| Any other workers who may be involved in editorial decision-making | Medium risk |
| Occasional contributors and contractors, and other staff not directly involved in content making or editorial decision-making | Low risk |
The nature of the external work
Different types of external work carry different risk levels. A key consideration is whether the work relates to contentious issues; generally speaking, the more contentious the issues, the higher the risk. If the work is political in nature, or involves the creation of editorial content, the risk is higher. Any connection (real or perceived) between the work and the ABC also increases the risk.
The table below provides some examples:
| Nature of external work | Risk level |
|---|---|
| Consulting or advising companies or organisations on media management e.g. media training or preparing publicity material | Extremely high risk |
| External work that involves expressing a personal opinion on a current contentious political or social debate, or implicitly endorsing a perspective within such a debate | Extremely high risk |
| External work that relates directly to your work at the ABC, or is likely to relate to your work at the ABC, or is likely to be perceived as such | High risk |
| Moderating debates and discussions on contentious issues | Medium risk |
| Journalistic analysis of contentious political or social issues | Medium risk |
| External work in support of charities, public health campaigns, or local community organisations | Low to medium risk |
| External work as an artist or performer | Low risk |
| External work that involves endorsing a commercial organisation, product or service | Extremely high risk – see note below |
Note regarding commercial endorsements: As noted above, external work involving commercial endorsements is regarded as extremely high risk. Workers whose ABC roles rely on maintaining impartiality in the public eye (e.g. journalists and presenters of news and information content) will generally not be permitted to undertake such work. Workers in other roles may be permitted to do so but must take care not to imply that the ABC endorses the organisation, product or service. Where such work takes place on a worker's personal social media account – for example, engaging in influencer marketing or other native advertising arrangements – the worker must also adhere to the ABC's Personal Use of Social Media Guidelines.
Who the external work is for
The nature of the organisation that the external work is being done for has a strong impact on the perception of independence. The table below provides some examples:
| Type of organisation | Risk level |
|---|---|
| Political party | Extremely high risk – unlikely to be approved other than in exceptional circumstances |
| Lobby group, campaign organisation, union, large public company | Very high risk |
| Think tank, NGO, low-profile company | Medium to high risk, depending on how controversial or politically partisan the organisation is or is perceived to be |
| Another publisher or media outlet | Low to medium risk depending on the nature of the work |
| University, school, cultural event | Low risk |
| Charity | Risk level varies – see note below |
Note regarding charities: ABC staff, particularly high profile staff, are often offered board positions on charities or other not-for-profits. The fiduciary duties attached to these positions present potential conflicts and the potential for reputational harm if the organisation is involved in scandal or financial difficulty. The risk varies depending on the nature of the organisation – low for small community organisations and greater for large national bodies. Non-board and non-executive roles are generally preferred to board or executive positions.
Payment or other compensation
The amount of money received for external work, or any other associated benefits relating to external work, substantially affect the perception of independence. The larger the amount of money, the greater the risk of potential compromise.
Payments of less than $500 are considered low risk, payments between $500 and $5000 are considered medium risk, payments between $5000 and $15000 are considered high risk, and payments over $15000 are considered extremely high risk. Regular payments or ongoing relationships are considered high risk.
Weighing up the risk factors
Once the factors outlined above have been carefully considered, the worker and manager will have a reasonably clear sense of the overall risk level. As a general guide, if the factors are mostly assessed as low or medium risk, the request can likely be approved; if there are multiple factors assessed as high, very high or extremely high risk, the request will likely be rejected.
Consideration should also be given to the potential benefits of the external work, which may offset some of the risks. Examples of benefits include:
- Raising the profile of the ABC in local and other communities;
- Participating in and encouraging rational debate of public policy and social issues;
- Engaging in activities that encourage or contribute to social cohesion;
- Developing contacts that may be of benefit to the ABC.
What outcomes are available?
There are several possible outcomes for any external work request. These are outlined below.
Avoid or reject
In most high risk cases, avoiding the editorial conflict altogether is the only option available. In these situations, the external work request would be rejected and a record kept of the reasons for not proceeding.
Proceed but mitigate
In some cases, practical steps can be taken to reduce the conflict of interest risk or eliminate it altogether. For example, the nature or extent of the external work could be changed to eliminate any conflict. Other potential mitigations might include declining payment for the external work, declining paid expenses, or altering the timing of the external work to avoid any real or perceived conflict.
Proceed and declare
In some cases, especially those where a degree of close consideration and mitigation has been undertaken, it may be determined that a residual potential conflict exists but is manageable and does not require the external work to be declined. In such circumstances, the external work should be transparently and prominently declared in such a way that it allows relevant ABC audiences and stakeholders to be aware of it.
Proceed
There will be circumstances where, after a careful examination of all relevant risks, no issues are identified and external work can be approved and proceed without further disclosure or mitigation. A record of the approved work would still be required to be retained.
How do we manage external work predating a worker's engagement by the ABC?
A wide range of people work for the ABC on a full time, part time, contract or casual basis. Many come to the ABC having worked in many different capacities for other individuals and organisations. They may also have ongoing work obligations or arrangements that have some risk attached.
A commonsense approach should be taken in assessing whether real, potential or perceived editorial conflicts between external and ABC work are serious enough to be a barrier to hiring or that cessation of existing arrangements should be a prerequisite to employment.
In relation to serious past work conflicts a period of time might be required to have elapsed to mitigate potential risk.
In less extreme cases it will usually be sufficient for the ABC to satisfy itself that any past conflict of interest has ended and there are no practical aspects of it that remain.
Status of Guidance Note
This Guidance Note, authorised by the Managing Director, is provided to assist interpretation of the Editorial Policies to which the Guidance Note relates. The Editorial Policies contain the standards enforceable under the ABC’s internal management processes and under the ABC’s complaints handling procedures.
It is expected the advice contained in Guidance Notes will normally be followed. In a given situation there may be good reasons to depart from the advice. This is permissible so long as the standards of the Editorial Policies are met. In such situations, the matter should ordinarily be referred upwards. Any mandatory referrals specified in Guidance Notes must be complied with.
Issued: 29 July 2016, Revised: 21 October 2024