THE ABC, THE LUNA PARK FIRE AND NEVILLE WRAN

ABC TV’s $2 million documentary was aired in February 2021. It made serious allegations in relation to the ghost train fire at Sydney’s Luna Park in June 1979. Those allegations involved then premier of New South Wales Neville Wran and criminal identity Abe Saffron. The program failed to substantiate these allegations and has been sharply criticised and called to account by, among others, former editor of the Sydney Morning Herald Milton Cockburn and columnist for The Australian Troy Bramston. The ABC has since conducted an independent inquiry into the program. On Thursday 19 August 2021, in a Zoom meeting for The Sydney Institute, Milton Cockburn and Troy Bramston laid bare the issues.

THE ABC, THE LUNA PARK FIRE AND NEVILLE WRAN

TROY BRAMSTON

Let me begin by thanking Gerard and Anne Henderson for inviting me back to The Sydney Institute. And I would like to pay tribute to Milton Cockburn, whom I have known for many years, and it is a privilege to share a platform with him tonight.

In April 2021, I watched the ABC’s three-part documentary on the 1979 Luna Park ghost train fire which claimed the lives of six children and one adult. It was a tragedy, and I supported calls for a fresh investigation into the fire. I was aware of the controversy over the fire and the numerous conspiracy theories, but came to the documentary with an open mind.

Exposed: The Luna Park Ghost Train Fire was a big production for the ABC – one of the few documentaries they have made in-house in recent years. Indeed, it was revealed during Senate Estimates that it cost almost two million dollars. The documentary team consisted of two reporters – Caro Meldrum-Hanna and Patrick Begley – and a producer and executive producer who worked on it over a 15-month period.

So, expectations were high.

I did not plan to write anything about the documentary. But, as I watched it, I became increasingly sceptical about the many claims being made. Tonight, I will first discuss the theory about how the fire started and who was responsible. And, second, I will discuss the claims of political conspiracy.

Television is a powerful medium. What people see and hear can strongly influence their opinion. It can leave a lasting impression that is hard to shake. This is especially the case when most people would not be familiar with the details of what happened, certain archival documents and the reliability of interviewees.

The documentary claims the fire was lit by a gang of bikies, using kerosene as an agent, on behalf of criminal underworld figure Abe Saffron. I examined the weaknesses of the claims of arson and conspiracy in The Weekend Australian on 24 April this year. The ABC did not find one person who saw the fire being lit. Instead, they produced multiple witnesses who saw bikies that evening. Nor did the ABC produce any witness who said they had a direct conversation with Saffron confessing he was behind the fire.

The documentary repeats that police thought the fire was caused by an electrical fault. A lot of time is spent questioning this. But the documentary did not pay much attention to what the coronial inquiry, headed by respected coroner Kevin Anderson, investigated. The coroner said the “the most probable” cause of the fire was a tossed cigarette or match, which ignited the ramshackle ride which was a known fire risk. The coroner considered sparks from the tracks igniting the flammable paint on the walls or a slow-starting electrical fault. This would be consistent with those interviewed in the documentary who saw flames in the imitation fireplace and on the walls.

Tony Jacob was the ghost ride attendant that night. He clipped the tickets for every person who rode the ghost train. He was interviewed for the documentary. He was given an award for bravery after trying to rescue those trapped inside as the ride became an inferno. But here’s something the ABC did not include in their documentary: Jacob did not see any bikies that night 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 this year. Nobody was in a better position to judge whether there were bikies who took the ghost train that night and whether kerosene was used as a fire agent. His testimony deflates the ABC’s arson claims. He told the ABC this, but they did not use it in the documentary.

The point is, that if there was no arson then there simply cannot be a criminal conspiracy. The fire was likely a tragic accident, as the coroner suggested.

A theme of the documentary is that the police investigation was flawed and there are witnesses who claim to have been pressured to change their testimony. It is known that elements of the police force were corrupt. The initial investigation into the fire was flawed and there was a rush to judgement. These are hardly revelations.

In the final episode of the documentary, Meldrum-Hanna tells the victims’ families there was a cover-up and, moreover, that it “went all the way to the top”. Neville Wran was the NSW premier at the time of the fire. If anyone was “the top”, then it was Wran. Indeed, this overall conclusion came after Wran’s name was dragged through the mud.

The documentary claims Wran had Friday night drinks with Saffron and they were “really pally”. This accusation is made by Saffron’s employee, Rosemary Opitz. Her credibility, having been Saffron’s long-term friend, is risible. The premier and a gangster having drinks? It is beyond stupid. No other person has been produced by the ABC to support this claim.

It gets even more ludicrous.

Former policeman Paul Egge claimed that illegal police wiretaps – the so-called “Age Tapes” – revealed that after the fire, Wran conspired with High Court judge Lionel Murphy to ensure the Luna Park lease went to a company that disguised Saffron’s interest. Meldrum-Hanna says this “allegation” was “confirmed”. It was an “allegation” made by Egge decades ago but the truth of it has never been “confirmed” at all. This was a sleight of hand by Meldrum-Hanna.

Egge’s claim was considered by the Stewart Royal Commission into the Age Tapes and could not be substantiated. It was also examined by the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry into Justice Murphy, which also said it was unproven.

Egge did not hear this claim about Wran on the tapes. He only read it in a transcript. But the transcript, let alone the tape, has never been found. Stewart found some of the transcripts and summaries to be unreliable and doubted the objectivity of the police who compiled them.

The ABC did not produce any recordings or transcripts to verify Egge’s claim about Wran. No other policeman corroborated this specific allegation about Wran in the documentary. But the ABC ran with this discredited claim made by Egge to link Wran to the fire, and to Saffron. Egge should never have been interviewed. It is shameful journalism.

During Senate Estimates in May 2021, ABC managing director David Anderson and editorial director Craig McMurtrie were asked if the ABC had “verified the content of the tapes which formed the basis of the allegations” against Wran. In a written reply, the ABC did not confirm it had sourced any recordings or transcripts implicating Wran. Yet Anderson and McMurtry defended the documentary because it only made “allegations” and it did not matter if these were “right or wrong” or “proven facts”. Further, they claimed that this was in the “true crime genre” – suggesting that it was more entertainment than journalism – which means the usual standards of journalism do not apply.

Are they serious? This shows not only poor journalism ethics but a callous disregard for the victims’ families.

There was a competitive tender process for the Luna Park lease that began after the fire. In 1980, the government commenced negotiations with the Grundy organisation. An agreement could not be reached and so another tender process was initiated. An inter-departmental committee made up of senior public servants recommended the lease go to Australasian Amusements (later renamed Harbourside).

Several inquiries, including the NSW Corporate Affairs Commission, found no “actual or beneficial” relationship between Saffron and Harbourside. David Baffsky, chairman of Harbourside, successfully sued Fairfax for alleging Harbourside was a Saffron front company. Guess who initiated the Corporate Affairs Commission investigation? Wran. He also supported a subsequent National Crime Authority investigation into Saffron.

If Wran had secretly orchestrated for his drinking pal, Saffron, to get the lease why would he do this?

The upshot is that none of these specific 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.

My criticisms of Exposed: The Ghost Train Fire has been backed up by interviews with former premiers Bob Carr and Barrie Unsworth, and former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, who said the corruption claims against Wran are absurd.

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

Andrew Andersons, a former government architect, who was on the tender selection committee for Luna Park, told me he was also misrepresented in the documentary. He told the ABC that Wran was not corrupt but they did not include this. I know others who feel duped by the ABC but declined to go public with their criticisms.

The ABC’s response to these has criticisms from respected high-profile individuals has been hysterical and unprofessional. I carry no brief for Wran. I knew Wran, interviewed him and edited a book of essays on his government, published in 2006. I regard him as a highly successful political leader. But I also wrote in The Wran Era that his government was “slow to act, reactive, and did not go far enough” to weed out “corruption in the prisons, police and lower courts”.

In May 2021, I said the ABC was unaccountable, treated its audience with contempt and had become a renegade broadcaster. I urged the chair and board “to take action”. I am pleased that the board has now ordered an independent external review of the documentary by journalist Chris Masters and academic Rod Tiffen. The board would not order a review if they were entirely happy with the program. There has only been one other review 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 is challenging the board. They have pre-empted the outcome of the review. It begs the question: who is running the ABC?

The documentary has serious flaws. The review must consider the following:

• the research process whereby reporters misunderstood key documents and ignored others, and claimed that Wran was heard on “the Age tapes” in connection with Luna Park yet produced no tapes or transcripts to verify this;
• the unethical use of the so-called “true crime” genre to defend making unsubstantiated allegations that do not have to be “proven facts” according to ABC management;
• the adherence to editorial policies, especially those that go to accuracy (2.1) and fair and honest dealing (5.3) and why Wran’s former ministerial colleagues, staff, friends and family were not interviewed;
• why interviews with Andrew Andersons and Tony Jacob were selectively edited to support a predetermined view and aspects of their testimony that countered this narrative was not broadcast;
• the editorial processes that allowed such a flawed program to be broadcast, which the ABC claimed was “subject to rigorous oversight” by producers, legal counsel, an editorial adviser and its head of investigations; and
• the broader ethics of journalism whereby just because Wran is dead, he can be defamed and have his reputation besmirched and, perhaps, irretrievably so.

Let me conclude by saying that I am a regular ABC viewer and listener who admires many of the ABC’s journalists and programs. But I was outraged to see so many claims – about the fire, about who was responsible, about the park lease and Wran – being made without conclusive or corroborated evidence. The documentary dwelled on the grief of families and put them through unnecessary trauma with wild conspiracy claims. I feel so sorry for them. It was tragedy upon tragedy.

Exposed: The Ghost Train Fire is a parody of investigative journalism. The ABC has treated its audience like mugs. They must be held accountable. The review must not be a whitewash.