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

This legislation is so unpalatable, you are right, I cannot get it out. This legislation is simply the latest instalment in the government’s decade-long ideological crusade against the ABC. This government has a track record of defunding, shutting down, removing power from and abolishing any organisation that does not fit the white picket fence ideological bent that this government has as to what organisations should think, say and do. For a decade the ABC has been starved of the funds it needs to be the world-class broadcaster that Australians expect, deserve and need.

In the first Costello budget in 1996, the ABC funding was cut by $66 million. This funding has never been adequately restored. In real terms, the ABC has less money today to make programs than in 1996. I do not have time to get into it fully but also we see that gradual loss of Australian content from the ABC because of a lack of funding. Before the last election, the government promised an independent review of the adequacy of the ABC’s funding. This review was conducted by KPMG at the massive cost to taxpayers of half a million dollars but the government have refused to release that half a million-dollar report to the public. Why would you have a report on the ABC and the effectiveness of funding and then refuse to release it publicly? You would think that they have something to hide. But luckily there were some leaks; somebody did leak the KPMG report and it suggested a number of things. In March, it was reported that KPMG found that the ABC needed an extra $125 million over the next three years just to maintain existing services.

Despite all the claims by the minister of a great outcome for the ABC in the budget, the fact is that the ABC is still chronically underfunded. The ideologically motivated funding squeeze continues. While the opposition opposes this bill, we do believe in some reform to the ABC board. There is public concern about the ABC’s corporate governance but it does not relate to the role of the staff elected director. There is a clear conservative bias on the current ABC board. If the government were to go by no other measure than by the background of some of the directors, you would have some idea of what they are actually doing.

Reforms are needed to strengthen public confidence in the independence of the ABC. There was a time when the Prime Minister claimed to understand the importance of the independence of the ABC. Back in 1995, he railed against appointments made by the Keating government. So there you go: when they were in opposition, they did one thing and now they are in government, they are doing another. Back then, he lectured all of us. He said, ‘You not only must have a board that is completely politically neutral but it must be seen to be neutral.’

That is right. That is what John Howard said—‘it must be seen to be politically neutral’. I do not know that the current board actually fits the bill in being seen to be politically neutral. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, who is at the table, and other people who are speaking on this bill can enlighten us on this theory of being seen to be neutral. It would be interesting to hear how the Prime Minister thinks his appointments of prominent conservatives like Michael Kroger, Mr Brunton and Ms Albrechtsen measure up against that criterion. John Howard was right back in 1995, but in this area as in so many others he has failed to live up to the principles he espoused when in opposition. The current appointments process lacks transparency and is too politicised.

Under current arrangements, the names of candidates are taken to cabinet by the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, but that is about all the public ever know about the whole process. These are the real questions that need to be asked. How do people apply to fill a board position? What criteria are used to assess candidates? Do you have to be a member of the right club? Which club? What sort of card do you have to carry to get a job in that place? Does it help if you have donated money? That is a good question. It certainly seems to help if you have been a conservative cultural warrior over the years.

Labor believes that there needs to be real reform of the appointments process to guarantee the independence of the ABC board and the expertise of its members. Since 2003 Labor has supported an independent merits based appointments process for ABC and SBS board vacancies. The process is based on the so-called Nolan rules that were developed in the UK and govern appointments to the BBC. Appointments to the ABC board must be open and transparent. I do not think anyone could argue against that. We must have confidence in the people we have in those positions. Vacancies should be publicly advertised. There should be clear, merit based selection criteria. Labor’s policy provides for an independent selection panel to undertake a proper shortlist selection process. This is in stark contrast to current arrangements. The selection of the short list would be independent of the minister.

Under Labor’s model the minister would be free to nominate someone not on the list, but there would be a political price to pay. Obviously, if the minister did that, they would have to account for that to the people of Australia. I think that would be a good thing. The minister would be required to table in parliament a formal statement of the reasons for selecting a candidate who was not on the short list. The publicity surrounding such a move would make it more unlikely that the government would pursue such an option. Labor’s policy would not exclude people previously involved in politics from serving on the ABC board. We do not actually have something against it. We think there needs to be a balance. To get the balance right, you cannot get rid of just one board position—that is, the staff elected one—and then have it completely weighted the other way. There needs to be a balance. It would ensure, however, that they had the skills to do the job and they would be seen as independent by the public because they were not short-listed by the minister. If the government were serious about improving the governance of the ABC, it would withdraw this bill and begin work on reforms reflecting the Nolan principles.

This bill represents a blatant attempt by the Howard government to undermine the independence of Australia’s national broadcaster, the ABC. The ABC is facing a number of challenges over the next few years. Like broadcasters around the world, the ABC will have to adapt to the rise of digital technology and the way it is transforming the media. In the months ahead, the ABC board will choose a new managing director to guide it through this uncharted territory. The ABC needs directors who understand the changing media landscape and the unique nature of public broadcasting. A staff elected director will be well placed to help the board to deal with these tasks. In conclusion, the parliament should not allow the government to replace experienced public broadcasters with yet more political stooges.

See this speech in context