ABC cannot get away with its ‘true crime’ train wreck

A review must hold the national broadcaster to account for its $2 million Ghost Train Fire ‘documentary’.

ABC journalist Caro Meldrum-Hanna in a scene from Exposed: The Ghost Train Fire.

In April this year, I watched the ABC documentary on the Sydney Luna Park ghost train fire, which tragically claimed the lives of six children and one adult in 1979. I was aware of the controversy over the fire and the many conspiracy theories, but came to it with an open mind.

Expectations were high. The ABC spent almost $2m on the documentary at a time of budget constraints and staff redundancies. Reporters Caro Meldrum-Hanna and Patrick Begley, along with a producer and executive producer, worked on it for 15 months.

The documentary claimed the fire was lit by a gang of bikies, using kerosene as an agent, on behalf of crime boss Abe Saffron. But the ABC did not find one person who saw the fire being lit. Instead, multiple witnesses said they saw bikies that evening.

Coroner Kevin Anderson said the “the most probable” cause of the fire was a tossed cigarette or match, igniting the ramshackle ride, which was a known fire risk. The paint on the walls, ceiling and ride cars was flammable.

Tony Jacob clipped the tickets for every person who rode the ghost train that night. Jacob was interviewed by the ABC but it did not include what he said about the show’s arson theory: he did not see any bikies and he did not smell kerosene.

I had a text exchange with Jacob after he was interviewed by Sarina Andaloro on Seven News in May. He has a clear recollection of that night. His testimony torpedoes the ABC’s arson claims. And if it was not arson, there cannot be a conspiracy.

The fire was likely a tragic accident, as the coroner suggested.

An aerial view of the damage following the fire on the Ghost Train ride at Luna Park in Sydney in 1979.

Meldrum-Hanna told the victims’ families there was a cover-up that went “all the way to the top”. By this stage, the then NSW premier, Neville Wran, had been implicated in a cover-up over the fire. It was also claimed that he had a social relationship with Saffron and orchestrated for the Luna Park lease to go to a Saffron front company.

Rosemary Opitz, a former Saffron employee, said the premier and the gangster had drinks together and were “really pally”. Her credibility as a gangster’s moll is risible. No other person has been produced by the ABC to support this accusation.

Former policeman Paul Egge claimed that illegal police wiretaps – the “Age Tapes” – revealed Wran conspired with High Court judge Lionel Murphy to ensure the Luna Park lease went to a Saffron-linked company.

Egge’s claim was examined by a royal commission and a parliamentary commission, which found it was not substantiated. Egge did not hear Wran mentioned on the tapes; he read a transcript. But no transcript or tape was produced by the ABC. And no other policeman backed up Egge’s claim about Wran.

Several inquiries, including by the NSW Corporate Affairs Commission, found no “actual or beneficial” relationship between Saffron and the company that was awarded the lease, Harbourside. Guess who initiated the Corporate Affairs Commission investigation? Wran. He also supported a subsequent National Crime Authority investigation into Saffron.

The upshot is that none of these allegations about Wran regarding the fire cover-up, socialising with Saffron or corruptly influencing a tender process are substantiated by documentary evidence or corroborated with multiple interviews.

Andrew Andersons, a former government architect, was on the tender selection committee for Luna Park. He told me he was also misrepresented by the ABC. He said Wran was not corrupt, but the ABC did not include this in the documentary.

David Hill, a former ABC chairman and managing director, told me the program breached editorial policies and should not have been broadcast. Hill, who previously worked for Wran, said it was “sloppy journalism”.

Yet ABC managing director David Anderson and editorial director Craig McMurtrie defended the documentary because it only made “allegations” and it did not matter if these were “right or wrong” or “proven facts”. At Senate estimates, they claimed the documentary was in the “true crime genre”, implying it was more entertainment than journalism.

The ABC response to a range of criticisms, including by Bob Carr, Barrie Unsworth and Malcolm Turnbull, has been arrogantly dismissed. In May, I argued the ABC had become a renegade broadcaster and urged the chair and board “to take action”.

Former NSW premier Neville Wran.

Sydney nightclub owner, property developer and crime figure Abe Saffron.

The board has ordered an independent external review by journalist Chris Masters and academic Rod Tiffen. The board would not order a review if it were entirely happy with the documentary. There has only been one other review of programming in the past nine months.

But the ABC, true to form, claimed the establishment of the review did not reflect adversely on the documentary, and said it “stands by the journalism”. The staff are challenging the board. They have pre-empted the review outcome. It begs the question: Who is running the ABC?

The board-ordered review must consider the following:

THE research process whereby reporters misunderstood documents and ignored others, and claimed Wran was heard on the “Age tapes” in connection with Luna Park yet produced no tapes or transcripts to verify this;

THE use of the so-called “true crime” genre to defend making unsubstantiated allegations that do not have to be “proven facts”;

THE adherence to editorial policies, especially accuracy (2.1) and fair and honest dealing (5.3), and why Wran’s former colleagues, friends and family were not interviewed;

WHY interviews with Jacob and Andersons were edited to support a predetermined view and aspects of their testimony that countered this narrative were ignored;

THE processes that allowed such a flawed program to be broadcast, which the ABC claimed was “subject to rigorous oversight” by editorial staff and legal counsel; and

THE justification for defaming Wran, who is dead and cannot defend himself.

This documentary is a parody of investigative journalism. The ABC has treated viewers like mugs and must be held accountable. The review cannot be a whitewash and it must be made public.

This is an abridged speech given to The Sydney Institute this week