Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Hansard source

Again, I hear an interjection, ‘Ha, ha,’ but there is not much else in this bill. This bill does one thing: it gets rid of the one person who is on the board of the ABC, who may have some founded understanding of the ABC because they actually come from the ABC. They are not some party hack the government has put up in the last five minutes. They are somebody who has worked there, who has a commitment to the ABC and the Australian people. Again, the government cannot have it both ways.

This bill is driven by ideology, as are most of the bills—I will not list all of them because I do not have enough time, but I think people do understand where I am coming from—instead of a genuine concern about the ABC itself, corporate governance or anything to do with fulfilling the responsibilities of board directors.

The Senate committee heard from the current staff elected director and the three previous ones. All showed a clear understanding that it is not the role of the staff elected director to represent ABC staff on the board. I cannot imagine why anyone would even think that. They are not elected to represent staff on a board; they are elected to carry out the responsibilities that come with the position. I do not think there is any confusion in the mind of any board director about what they are, but this is where it gets tricky. The perceived activities or the perceived work of board directors can be seen in many different lights, particularly if you are a one-eyed government. If you do not get everything going 100 per cent your way then of course there is some sort of a conspiracy going on or something is happening behind the scenes—perhaps somebody is talking, somebody is leaking, maybe somebody has found something out.

As Quentin Dempster stated, ‘The staff director is not the shop steward for the unions.’ He is right; that is not their role. Staff-elected directors have a proud record of defending the interests of the ABC, even if governments do not like it—whether it be your government, our government or any government. They have a good track record of that.

In 2002 Kirsten Garret opposed a lucrative exclusive deal between the ABC and Telstra because it would have allowed Telstra to influence ABC production decisions, so it was a good decision. In the mid-1990s Quentin Dempster opposed backdoor sponsorship arrangements that contravened the ABC Act. In both cases the staff elected directors resisted proposals benefiting ABC staff because they came at the cost of undermining the independence of the ABC.

In making its case, the government has also relied on the Uhrig Review of the corporate governance of statutory authorities and office holders. In that report Mr Uhrig cautioned against representational appointments to government boards, as we heard from the minister in his introduction, but Mr Uhrig’s report provides thin support for the removal of the ABC staff elected director. Contrary to what the government has claimed, Mr Uhrig did not examine governance arrangements at the ABC. He did not interview the chairman of the ABC, nor did he interview any other past or present ABC directors. It would seem that a few people might have been missing from that review. In fact, the terms of reference of the review required Mr Uhrig to focus on government agencies with ‘critical business relationships’. The Australian Taxation Office, the ACCC, APRA, ASIC, the Reserve Bank of Australia, the Health Insurance Commission and Centrelink were specifically named in the terms of reference—so that was the focus and that is what the Uhrig review and report were about; they were not necessarily about the ABC and its staff elected director. By the way, these entities are very different from the ABC. I think people would acknowledge that you cannot really make a comparison between the Australian Taxation Office and the ABC.

See this speech in context