An ABC Radio presenter revealed as the voice of the notorious Bob Katter Australian Party attack ad — roundly condemned by all sides of politics — has been stood down by the national broadcaster.
Suzanne McGill, a casually-employed Saturday breakfast host of ABC South West WA local radio, is named at the end of the ad as the voiceover artist responsible for delivering homophobic lines like “the LNP leader supports gay marriage, just like Greens leader Bob Brown” and “is a vote for LNP leader Campbell Newman a vote for gay marriage?”
After a pro-gay marriage blog speculated over the connection, and following Crikey‘s inquiries to the ABC, a spokesperson said a formal investigation will now be held into McGill’s involvement.
“It can be confirmed that Ms McGill did not seek nor obtain permission for external voiceover work, as required under ABC Editorial and Workplace behaviours policies,” the spokesperson said.
“ABC Editorial and Workplace Policies apply to all staff, regardless of employment status. To that end, the ABC will conduct a formal investigation. Ms McGill will not be on air while the matter is investigated.”
According to the ABC’s editorial policies covering “independence, integrity and responsibility”, the “external activities of individuals undertaking work for the ABC must not undermine the independence and integrity of the ABC’s editorial content”. Its specific Queensland election policies reiterate its commitment to impartiality and independence given the trust thrust upon the government broadcaster by the voting public.
McGill could not be contacted this morning.
In addition to her ABC work, McGill is employed by Abe’s Audio, doing spots for a range of clients including furniture retailers and flower shops. An Abe’s spokesperson confirmed that the company had been involved in the production of the Katter spot.
Other elements of the ad have also attracted criticism. The pixellated image of the gay couple used in the ad was quickly chased by crafty Googlers to this copyrighted stock image from a French photo house.
The Katter strategists behind the ad depart from the usual Australian template, employing many of the tactics incorporated in US versions including sinister keyboard lines, slow pans and zooming, repetition and horror movie-style cut-ups.
The ad appears to be strongly influenced by this notorious 2008 effort from US conservative political action group the “American Issues Project”, linking Weather Underground founder Bill Ayres to Barack Obama. “Do you know enough to elect Barack Obama?” the haunting voiceover asked.
University of Melbourne political ad expert Sally Young told Crikey this morning that while the US-aping approach was usually a rarity, Australia has a storied history of negativity, including attacks on Robert Menzies, Gough Whitlam and the Libs’ recently-reprised “Kevin O’Lemon” and “Latham L Plates” series.
“It’s very presidential in style … the production values are really cheap and nasty and the use of the image is interesting,” she said. “Obviously they didn’t want to get a real image of a gay couple in case they repudiated them. It’s very American…there’s no sense of humour about it and it’s actually quite vicious.”
Overnight, The Guardian posted a helpful primer to the current slate of GOP primary attack ads which have much higher production values. The all-time best attack ad — so famous that it has inspired its own “index” — is this 1988 George HW Bush spot highlighting Michael Dukakis’ “weekend prison passes” that allowed criminal Willie Horton to commit rape and murder.
Then there’s this amazing mash-up on the 1800 presidential election. “John Adams is a blind, bald crippled, toothless man who wants to start a war with France,” the ad begins. “When he’s not busy importing mistresses from Europe he’s trying to marry one of his sons to a daughter of King George.”
A political insider contacted by Crikey this morning named a classic of the Australian genre as a 2007 NSW election Labor ad targeting Peter Debnam’s ownership of a failed prawn hatchery and a gym.

27 thoughts on “ABC Radio presenter, the voice of Katter hate ad, stood down”
Mal White
March 13, 2012 at 8:22 pmIt does not follow that that by doing the voice over she agrees with the ad. She may have done it for the money to compliment her part time job at the ABC and may actually support Gay marriage.
The real issue is that she disobeyed a clause in her contract.
A few questions can be raised.
Is the ABC decision to suspend her an over reaction since she did not put her name to the ad?
If she had informed the ABC of her extra work would they have stopped her?
Mal White
March 13, 2012 at 8:33 pmMy mistake, she did put her name to the voice over, although spoken so quickly it is not easy to pick up.
Andrew Lindner
March 13, 2012 at 9:57 pmWhether or not we agree with the message of the ad, I thought that this was Australia and we could not be fired from our jobs because of our political views. This isn’t even to say that she agreed with the message. perhaps she just needed the money.
Does this mean that the ABC is leftist or at least pro gay marriage?
Monash.Edu
March 13, 2012 at 10:12 pmFair call, SSS. I think the ad is one of the most vicious, homophobic thing I’ve seen in ages, but the voiceover is pretty tame.
Monash.Edu
March 13, 2012 at 10:56 pmWhich is not to say that she isn’t guilty by association. I usually oppose censorship on principle, but this is really nasty stuff.
I say let it run, and let the people of Queensland understand what a joke Katter and his spiteful ‘party’ really are.
Suzanne Blake
March 14, 2012 at 6:59 amIt does not matter what is in her ABC contract, if it prohibits other work, it is retraint of trade. She will win easily in any Australian IR court, if it goes that far.
I have seen these cases, been an expert witness at one.
Peter Ormonde
March 14, 2012 at 9:56 amActually I reckon as far as a political hate ad goes this is pretty lightweight. Not even remotely vilifying … no claims about gay predators in our schools and the sort of appalling stuff that gets run in the US.
This is what happens in the ugly world of Orstrayan politics. So far I reckon we’re getting off light. But if you want to run a political campaign you can’t complain when the forces of darkness mount a retaliatory campaign. That’s how it works.
The real issue for me is why on earth any government has any business even discussing marriage at all. Leave that to God and the men in cassocks and silly hats.
Civil unions – a contractual arrangement – that provides protection for property rights, superannuation, kids and all that sort of thing is quite legit. But marriage is an absurd issue for government to be wasting it’s time on. Got nothing to do with them. Or with any of us.
mikeb
March 14, 2012 at 4:20 pmIt’s a no-brainer really. For an on-air presenter (particularly from the ABC) to participate in a paid political advertisement without permission can only result in disciplinary action or at least investigation. Where it ends after that is yet to be determined, but all you pseudo-lawyers pre-empting the motives and outcomes need to get a dose of reality.
@suzanne blake – you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. Restraint of trade (if this case is an example of it) is clearly enforcable provided it is reasonable. Without seeing what was in her contract or conditions of employment I’d suggest it would have been well and truly legalled before hand. It’s not as if this is an unusual situation for a media organisation.
Blair Martin
March 14, 2012 at 4:29 pmIf you are so sure, Suzanne, why don’t you offer to represent her? I doubt your confidence is that well founded in the real world. If you’d like to quote the judgements of which you have been a part to show that she will win then we are all ears.
If this is such a heinous restraint of trade, then why have there never been actions before?
I’m sorry but as someone who does voice-over work on ocassions, I do have standards, and Ms McGill shows by accepting this ridiculous gig that she has few save the one to have money and damn the consequences.
Suzanne Blake
March 15, 2012 at 8:52 am@ mikeb
Suggest you look at case law on Restraint of Trade in Employment Law in AUSTRALIA.
It has only been held to be enforcable where the employee has commercially sensitive information. This is not customer lists, but generally secret IP.
She was part time, its even less enforcable.
She would win with any half wit representing her, it would last minutes in an IR court.
This female journalist has been unfairly dealt with.