Australian Broadcasting Corporation This article is more than 2 years oldIndependent review criticises ABC’s Luna Park ghost train fire series over Neville Wran claim
This article is more than 2 years oldReview ‘contains a critical opinion’ about one Wran allegation, but otherwise finds the series performed an important public service
An independent editorial review has criticised the ABC documentary Exposed: The Ghost Train Fire for making a historical allegation about the former New South Wales premier Neville Wran.
Wran, who led NSW as Labor premier for a decade, died in 2014 aged 87. A group of his former staffers has been critical of the ABC documentary by the award-winning journalist Caro Meldrum-Hanna.
The three-part series examined the fire at Sydney’s Luna Park in 1979 that killed six boys and a man.
One aspect of the program, about alleged connections between Wran and the organised crime figure Abe Saffron, has been criticised by Wran’s friends, including the former ABC chairman and managing director David Hill, former NSW premiers Bob Carr and Barrie Unsworth, and the former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, as unfair, uncorroborated and stretching credulity.
The ABC appointed the journalist Chris Masters and the academic Rod Tiffen to review the material after questions about the program were asked at Senate estimates.
Although there is no detail in the ABC statement, the review has found some fault with that segment.
In response to questions raised in Senate Estimates last night the ABC wishes to put on the public record clarifying information around content in EXPOSED: The Ghost Train Fire relating to former NSW Premier Neville Wran. https://t.co/F7eTqqzeN4
— ABC Communications (@ABCMediaComms) May 27, 2021The ABC would not comment further on the findings of the review.
“It contains a critical opinion about one aspect of Exposed – an historical allegation regarding Neville Wran, to which ABC News has responded,” the ABC said in a statement ahead of the publication of the review.
Likely to be published on Monday, the review also contains a response to the finding from the ABC’s news division, which is responsible for the editorial content of the series.
“Reviews are not ‘pass/fail’ tests for content,” the ABC said. “The ABC always looks for ways content can be better and values the insights of external reviewers.”
The review concludes that: “The program makers uncovered much suspicious evidence around arson being the cause of the fire, exposed the incompetence of the police investigation, reported on the inadequacies of earlier investigations, revealed the way policy making by the NSW government benefited Saffron, and the corrupt circle of influence around Saffron. They mounted a compelling case for a new investigation.”
The review also found the program performed an important public service and its production values were “world class” and “exemplary”.
“It brings together more than five dozen on-camera interviews and scours through a huge amount of documentary research on official transcripts and reports,” the review said.
“This is a depth and breadth of research that very few television series achieve, and the result is much fresh, revealing and important material.
“Since its broadcast, there have been responses by the coroner and by the police, who are now offering a reward for information about the fire, and widespread calls in parliament and elsewhere for a new inquiry.”
The NSW police unsolved homicide squad set up Strike Force Sedgeman to investigate the cause and origin of the fire at the direction of the coroner, and NSW police offered a $1m reward for new information regarding the fire.
The police minister, David Elliott, has appealed to anyone with information to come forward.
“Despite the passage of time, this horrific incident remains embedded in the psyche of Sydneysiders,” Elliott said last month.
The ABC has strongly defended Exposed and said again it was proud of the program and the “talented, diligent, and hard-working team of journalists who made it”.
The ABC’s independent complaints department has found the series did not breach editorial standards.
ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7tbTEoKyaqpSerq96wqikaKWVmbaie5FpaWpnkaq0cH%2BPaKCnnJWlsq%2BwxKerZqqVq7amw4ycqaKsmZi2tLHSZpibm6Niuba6wGanmqqbYrSpu9KtZK2qkZ67brLIq5xmq5Wntqa%2FjKitnqpdo7K3tculnGavopa7bq%2FLmqCm