On 19 November 2025 at the National Press Club, we asked ABC Managing Director Hugh Marks about the ABC’s relationship with ACON, the LGBTQ+ advocacy organisation that operates the Australian Workplace Equality Index (AWEI), an accreditation program first publicly mentioned by the ABC in its 2019–20 annual report. Mr Marks’s response revealed that this significant governance matter – one that carries risks for public trust and perceptions of influence – is only now coming to his attention. A welcome recognition, if it leads to meaningful review.
What we learned
During the televised question period, Mr Marks acknowledged concerns about the ABC’s coverage of transgender issues, agreeing that scrutiny is reasonable and that the organisation must consider “where we haven’t given the relevant amount of coverage that maybe we should have.” He emphasised that discussions about balance, sourcing and missing perspectives were already under way with the Head of News.
When we raised the ACON relationship directly, Mr Marks characterised it as “driven out of a people and culture relationship.” Mr Marks continued, “I would say we’ve gone to ACON people from time to time in some of the editorial coverage that we’ve done”; however, said he did not expect the relationship with ACON would be “subject to a board review”.
In our follow-up questions after the address, we provided Mr Marks with specific details about the nature of the relationship: that the ABC pays ACON to participate in AWEI; that the ongoing cost is not publicly disclosed in annual reports; that the ABC submits workplace policies and HR data to ACON for assessment; that ACON staff score the ABC’s submissions based on LGBTQ+ inclusion metrics; and that the ABC receives ratings based on LGBTQ+ inclusion metrics. Presented with this information – which he said was “new to me this week” – Mr Marks twice responded, “I’m on it.”
Concerns raised previously
These concerns are not new. In August 2024, AAWAA co-signed with other women’s and LGB groups a letter to ABC Chair Kim Williams raising concerns that the ABC’s relationship with ACON was undermining public trust in the national broadcaster. The coalition noted significant omissions in ABC coverage on issues where ACON had taken clear advocacy positions on contested issues, including on sex and gender policy and youth gender medicine. The ABC’s Editorial Director, Mr Gavin Fang, responded on behalf of the Chair, stating that AWEI “has no connection to ABC content commissioning” and asserting he could see no evidence the relationship influenced reporting.
But now that Mr Marks has himself acknowledged that the ABC has not consistently delivered balanced coverage on transgender issues, we believe it is reasonable to scrutinise how the ABC’s relationship with ACON may have contributed to gaps in the ABC’s reporting and questions about balance.
What the BBC experience shows us
The BBC provides instructive precedent. In 2021, BBC Director-General Tim Davie withdrew the BBC from Stonewall’s Diversity Champions program – the model on which ACON based the AWEI scheme – concluding that withdrawal was “the correct move at this time to minimise the risk of perceived bias and avoid any perception that engagement with the program is influencing our own decision-making.”
Just like ACON, Stonewall positioned itself as operating as a workplace inclusion program. Yet their influence extended widely across the organisation, including the news desk. In November 2025, a leaked internal memo written in October 2024 by Michael Prescott, a former independent adviser to the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee, revealed that despite formal withdrawal from Stonewall in 2021, editorial culture had been so shaped by years of the relationship that coverage gaps and editorial decisions reflected institutional capture, not individual bias. Mr Prescott’s memo observed that the BBC’s LGBT desk had been “captured by a small group of people” who blocked gender-critical stories and kept alternative perspectives off air. The leak prompted senior resignations and widespread criticism of BBC editorial management.
The BBC’s experience demonstrates how advocacy relationships can shape editorial culture at an institutional level, even when individual journalists uphold professional standards. Influence is gradual: it affects how issues are framed, which stories are prioritised, and which fall away – a slow embedding of assumptions and perspectives.
For the ABC, which has remained in the AWEI scheme and now has ‘platinum’ status, the same risks of institutional embedding apply. The ABC’s own Media Watch program acknowledged just this week that significant coverage gaps exist on contested transgender issues: no coverage of the Tickle v Giggle appeal, delayed reporting of the Tavistock clinic closure, and no mention of former Family Court Chief Justice Diana Bryant’s change of heart regarding her earlier support for puberty blockers.
Whether these gaps reflect editorial judgment or institutional culture shaped by the ACON relationship cannot be determined without independent assessment – one that should be presented to Parliament, and through Parliament to the Australian public.
Audit needed now
We do not question Managing Director Marks’s commitment to editorial independence or suggest any improper motivation. His willingness to engage with these questions in both the formal Q&A and our subsequent discussion shows an openness to scrutiny. That openness is welcome – but scrutiny must occur within the ABC’s statutory framework.
The ABC operates under the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983, which imposes essential duties on the Corporation. Section 8 requires the Board (of which Mr Marks is a member) to maintain the independence and integrity of the ABC and ensure news and current affairs comply with impartiality standards. Section 80 requires the Board to include specific matters in annual reports to Parliament, including particulars of any significant changes affecting the ABC.
The Board should, then, commission an independent audit now of how the ACON relationship has shaped editorial culture, including sourcing patterns, story selection, and coverage of contested policy areas such as sex and gender. This mirrors concerns already being formally raised with Parliament through a petition (currently open) that calls for an independent review of the ABC–ACON relationship.
That audit should address three central questions. First, is the ABC’s continued relationship with ACON compatible with the ABC’s independence obligations under Section 8? Second, if the ABC’s experience mirrors that of the BBC, should the ABC follow precedent and withdraw from AWEI? Third, if some form of relationship continues, what governance safeguards will ensure that editorial culture is not shaped – or perceived to be shaped – by an advocacy organisation that actively campaigns on issues that the ABC has a duty to report?
Breaking news: A shift in coverage?
In a significant development last night, the ABC reported on New Zealand’s decision to join a growing list of countries ending the use of puberty blockers for children following reviews identifying insufficient evidence and risks of harm. This coverage, coming just days after Media Watch acknowledged significant gaps in ABC reporting on contested sex and gender issues, suggests the conversation about editorial balance may be shifting. Whether this represents a genuine change in editorial approach remains to be seen.
