Former AFL identity Sam Newman has criticised the ABC over its handling of a controversial satirical segment targeting mining billionaire Gina Rinehart, arguing the national broadcaster should publicly apologise and questioning whether all public figures are being treated by the same standard.

The debate centres on a segment titled A Very Relaxing Video, which aired during the ABC’s Race Around the World program on July 12. The piece featured graphic and violent fictional references involving Ms Rinehart, prompting widespread criticism from political leaders, business figures and members of the public.

Speaking on his You Cannot Be Serious podcast, Newman said the controversy was about fairness rather than politics.

“There are a few of us out there who put the beer in the wrong esky and it gets reported on,” Newman said.

“It gets overexaggerated. It gets blown out of all proportion and they want to talk about it for weeks.

“There are others who seem to miss out on that scrutiny because of whatever side they sit on.”

According to Newman, Australians simply expect consistency regardless of who is involved.

“I think all anyone wants, whether you’re watching a sport that’s being refereed or umpired, whether it’s politics, the law, no matter what it is, is an even playing field,” he said.

“It should be an even playing field, should it not?”

The comments come as Hancock Prospecting continues pursuing legal action against the ABC over the broadcast. The company has sent formal legal correspondence to ABC chair Kim Williams, deputy chair Lisa Caffery and managing director Hugh Marks alleging serious civil and criminal law breaches arising from both the broadcast and the continued publication of the segment.

The ABC has confirmed it received the legal correspondence and stated it would respond through the appropriate legal process. At the time of the broadcaster’s initial response, it had not issued a formal public apology.

The disputed segment was presented as satire and featured contestant Kate McGuinness delivering increasingly graphic fictional commentary directed at Ms Rinehart. The content generated immediate backlash, with critics arguing it crossed the line between satire and the glorification of violence.

Hancock Prospecting described the material as “appalling” and argued the program had passed through multiple editorial and production stages before being approved for broadcast, making the broadcaster responsible for the final product rather than solely its creator.

The company further argued that describing the material as satire did not remove the broadcaster’s editorial obligations or responsibilities under its public charter. It called for the ABC to remove the content, conduct an investigation into how it reached air and issue a formal apology.

Initially, the ABC defended the segment as satirical in tone, noting that although contributors are not ABC journalists, all material broadcast by the organisation is subject to editorial standards and review processes. As criticism intensified, complaints were referred to the ABC Ombudsman for independent assessment. >

McGuinness later apologised to anyone offended by the piece, saying her work was intended as exaggerated, cartoonish satire rather than encouragement of real-world violence. She said she never intended viewers to interpret the fictional scenario literally.

The controversy has expanded well beyond the original broadcast.

Communications Minister Anika Wells publicly described the material as “unacceptable” while also emphasising the importance of maintaining the ABC’s editorial independence. Health Minister Mark Butler similarly criticised the segment, calling it inappropriate for a taxpayer-funded broadcaster.

Western Australian Premier Roger Cook also described the language used in the segment as unacceptable and confronting, although he stopped short of directly calling on the ABC to apologise.

The incident has become part of a broader debate over standards applied to satire, freedom of expression and editorial responsibility within publicly funded media organisations.

Supporters of Hancock Prospecting argue the reaction would likely have been significantly different had comparable language been directed at another prominent Australian figure from a different political or ideological background. Critics have questioned whether the ABC applied its own editorial principles consistently when approving the segment for broadcast.

Those defending the broadcaster have pointed to Australia’s long tradition of political satire and argued that creative expression, even when provocative, should not automatically be interpreted as an endorsement of violence. They also note the ABC Ombudsman process exists specifically to independently assess complaints about editorial standards.

For Newman, however, the broader issue remains one of consistency.

His comments suggest that public confidence depends not on whether people agree with a particular political figure or business leader, but on whether institutions apply identical standards regardless of who is involved.

The legal dispute remains ongoing, with Hancock Prospecting seeking accountability over both the original broadcast and the ABC’s response after complaints were lodged.

Update: Since the initial controversy and Newman’s comments, the ABC has issued a formal apology to Gina Rinehart, acknowledged the segment fell short of community expectations despite findings that it did not breach editorial policies, removed the video from its platforms and announced changes to editorial guidance concerning violent content.