Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Labor will be opposing the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment Bill 2006. It is bad public policy and bad corporate governance. It is bad public policy because the broadcasting expertise provided by the staff appointed ABC board member has consistently assisted the board in its decision making. It is bad corporate governance because the staff appointed board member, as with all board members, is legally required to fulfil their obligations as a board member with due care and diligence. There is no evidence that due diligence has not been followed by the staff appointed board members over the years.

You cannot just turn around and assert something without producing evidence. There have been many opportunities in the past few months for the government to provide hard evidence. The government has tabled the bill in the Senate, and subsequently senators have spoken on the bill. There have already been several speakers in the House on the bill prior to me, and there was an extensive inquiry by the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee. The opposite has occurred: evidence of the value of the staff appointed member has consistently emerged. Indeed, in the Senate inquiry, several examples of the ability of the staff elected representative to put the needs of the corporation before anything else were cited.

One of those instances is particularly indicative. In the period 1996 to 2000, Telstra had approached the ABC for a deal which would allow Telstra to hand-pick from ABC programming, be involved in co-productions and have some influence on internal productions. Not surprisingly, the proposal was heavily weighted in favour of Telstra. The staff elected board member fought the proposal from its outset and from the shop floor, as it were. The staff elected board member, Ms Garrett, was able to demonstrate to her fellow board members that such a deal would impact negatively on the people in the front line and on the public broadcaster generally. The deal was eventually overturned.

A second case in point clearly demonstrates there is a crystal clear distinction between ‘staff elected’ and ‘staff representative’. In the 1990s a matter arose over backdoor sponsorship whereby external parties could influence the content of programs. The ABC was short of cash and there were arguments that the financial injection would potentially save jobs. The staff elected representative argued that external funding was compromising the guidelines of the ABC. Mr Quentin Dempster, a former staff elected ABC board member who has recently been elected again, commented in relation to this issue in his submission to the Senate committee:

Rather than act in the narrow self-interest of the ABC’s staff, the staff elected Director’s role in the exposure was an agonising episode requiring the ABC’s interests and reputation to be placed above those of its employees.

All the staff elected representatives who made submissions or appeared before the Senate committee stated strongly that their role was as a member of the board, not of representing ABC staff. They also noted that, in almost every instance, the staff understood and supported that role. These people clearly understood their responsibilities in terms of corporate governance.

I particularly considered the evidence given to the committee by the unions representing ABC staff. The unions took the line that they would have resented the staff elected board member usurping the position of unions. Mr Graeme Thomson from the Community and Public Sector Union stated to the committee:

To the extent that the staff elected director would seek to usurp the proper role of the trade unions, it would suggest—at least, in our minds—that we would not be able to support the staff elected director. The truth is that the staff elected director is not a staff representative—that is the role of the elected trade unions and the organisation. We believe that quite distinct and complementary roles are performed.

Therefore, the argument proposed by the government that this person would put the interests of staff over their obligations of corporate governance is a fallacy.

In its submission to the Senate committee, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance mentioned a previous Senate committee. In 2001 the method of appointments to the ABC board was considered in an inquiry conducted by the committee that considered this matter. A report called Above board? Methods of appointment to the ABC Board resulted from this inquiry. Nothing has changed between 2001 and 2006 in relation to appointments to the ABC board. In that report, however, the report by the government senators supported the maintenance of the status quo of the appointment of board members. The chair recommended the retention of the staff appointed director. What has changed? The government senators at that time were in the majority, as they are now. What has changed is that the government holds the majority in both houses of this parliament. The MEAA continued its submission to the most recent inquiry by arguing:

The Alliance rejects the implicit assertion that staff elected directors cannot and have not been aware of their roles and responsibilities as board directors. They have all been fully aware of their fiduciary and legal responsibilities as board directors ... they are elected for the contribution they can make to the Board, to the good governance of the organization ...

There are very clear legal parameters for the operation of board members enshrined in the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997. The ABC is a Commonwealth authority for purposes of this act. It imposes duties on officers, including directors-general. These include duties of care and diligence, the duty to act in good faith, the duty not to misuse the officers’ position and the duty not to misuse information. To my knowledge, at no time have any of the holders of the position of staff elected director betrayed those principles. To do so would mean they were in breach of their duties under the legislation as it currently stands. One could argue that the premise may as well hold true for those directors appointed by the government through the Governor-General.

This bill is a continuation of the government’s ongoing attack on the ABC. In the second reading speech the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads gave a number of reasons for doing away with a staff elected director. There was talk of the tension in relation to the position on the ABC board over many years. There was also the corporate governance argument. Tension of itself is not a basis upon which to abolish a staff elected director’s position. Tension can occur on any board of directors, and it can revolve around particular personalities. I serve as a director of Revesby Workers Club. We have discussions in our board meetings, different sides are taken, the result is accepted and we go forward. With different personalities, there might be more tension—there might be leaking or a whole range of things happening—but that of itself is not a basis for getting rid of a staff elected director.

I think the government should be a bit more honest. I think this is just a policy decision based on the government’s political ideology. Just be up front. Forget about these false arguments. If it is the position of the Liberal Party that there should not be a staff elected director, then just say so. There is no doubt that, when one hears the contributions by members opposite and in the Senate, you can see the paranoia with the ABC and the hatred of the left-wing bias, so-called, of the ABC and particular commentators who were formerly members of the Australian Labor Party or who worked for the ALP. The same could be argued on our side for those with a Liberal bent. My view is that, because you have had a political view in your life, it does not disqualify you from appointment to bodies, whatever they are, and that you look at people on their merits and the contributions they make.

The history of the staff elected position is that it was first introduced by the Whitlam government without legislation in 1975. It was subsequently abolished by the Fraser government. The current position was created by an amendment to the ABC Act in 1986. Because the government now has a majority in the Senate, it is bringing forward its abolition, but I do not believe that it has made out a proper case in relation to corporate governance or tension. Tension can occur between directors who are not elected but who are appointed by a government wanting to take an organisation in a different direction. No-one can tell me that corporate governance sometimes has not been breached by government appointments. This position is being attacked because it is a staff elected position.

The ABC has been served well by staff elected directors and they have made a contribution over the years. Quentin Dempster and Tom Molomby have added to and enriched the ABC and the deliberations of the board. This nebulous argument that there is some tension—and, as such, a particular person thought that the time should come to an end—is a nonsense. I think the government should provide more substance or be more honest about its ideological perspective not supporting such positions. And I think that is a sad thing.

In the past, the ABC has not failed to attract criticism from the Labor Party. When Labor was in government, the ABC rightly scrutinised the government. In many respects, it can be seen as the official opposition by the way it runs a number of programs that delve deeply into which direction a government is heading. But staff elected directors have, in my considered view, added to the ABC. If a rogue director comes along, then deal with the rogue. Do not deal with the principle of the position. Alternatively, be honest and come forth and say: ‘It’s our policy position that no such positions should exist. That is not the way we see the organisation running into the future.’

The corporate governance argument is a nonsense argument. It could apply equally to other directors of the ABC. Where there has been a consistent, continued pattern, you have to demonstrate that a staff elected director has put the ABC’s interests second and the staff’s interests first. The government has not been able to do that. If there were tension between the staff elected director and other members of the board, that of itself is not sufficient to abolish the position. It might say something about the staff elected director. I am not here to vouch for each and every one of them or their characters, because there are some I do not know or I have not met and I have not paid them particular attention. That is a matter that they would have to deal with in subsequent elections. I note that Quentin Dempster was elected to the position recently.

In relation to the ongoing attacks by the government, the Treasurer made much of the injection of $1.6 billion into the ABC over the next three years. The government appointed chairman, Donald McDonald, lauded the government’s generosity in providing $30 million for Australian drama and documentaries, an extra $80 million for specific initiatives, $45 million to upgrade equipment, $13 million for regional local programming and an additional $600 million over the next 10 years for the ABC’s move to digital broadcasting. What both the Treasurer and the ABC chairman failed to mention is that over the past 10 years the ABC has been chronically underfunded and denuded of funds. The operating budget has fallen across that period. The funding this year falls far short of consultant recommendations.

In a leaked report, we are advised that KPMG was commissioned to investigate ABC funding and efficiency. It is understood that the report recommends the government fund the ABC to the tune of an extra $125 million over the next three years. That funding would allow the ABC to continue at its current depleted level of operation—not ensure that the national broadcaster is a strong participant in the emerging digital media environment. Not surprisingly, Minister Coonan has still failed to release the KPMG report. That of itself is a disgrace.

With my colleagues I welcome the additional funding for the ABC. However, only half the amount requested by the ABC was forthcoming. I am advised that the new money will allow the ABC to produce around 28 hours a year of new content. Recent figures show a staggering decline in locally produced drama on the ABC from 100 hours in 2001 to just 20 hours in 2005. Clearly this indicates why the ABC requested a further $38.4 million. Of this, $20 million would have been used to fund an extra 58 hours per year of home-grown drama, documentaries and children’s and arts programming.

Under its charter, the ABC has a responsibility ‘to encourage and promote the musical, dramatic and other performing arts in Australia’. This is quite simply impossible for the national broadcaster without adequate funding. I note the comments made by Judith Rodriguez from the Friends of the ABC in response to this year’s budget. Ms Rodriguez made her comments in the Australian Financial Review on 15 May, where she said:

The government has used the budget to increase its control over the ABC operations: The broadcast triennial base funding has been frozen to the level at which it was cut after the government was elected in 1996. Program funding above the base is tied, targeted to Australian TV drama and documentaries, and regional programming.

Targeted funding overrides the ABC board responsibility of ensuring all areas of the broadcaster charter responsibilities are met.

Ms Rodriguez argues that this starving of the ABC creative base is ‘privatisation by stealth’—a truly terrifying vision, a quite real potential for what is effectively privatisation of the ABC. Imagine government determining programming for the ABC rather than the national broadcaster itself. I do mean ‘government’—not just this government but any government.

The ABC remains a stronghold of independent national broadcasting for this country, yet its very future is threatened. In May 2005 the ABC published, as it does every year, a Newspoll survey on community attitudes. One of the findings was:

... nine in 10 Australians continue to believe the ABC provides a valuable service to the community, and half believe it provides a very valuable service.

The commercial media would kill for such a ringing endorsement. A few years ago, Readers’ Digest asked its readers in Australia to name the brands and institutions they most trusted. The ABC came in as the sixth most trusted government service between public schools and public hospitals and came in ahead of such bodies as the CSIRO and universities. ABC news beat all other television news services. Yet this government continues its politicisation and privatisation of the ABC. The undermining of public trust in such a national institution is appalling. It is worth reiterating the duty of the ABC board as set out in the act:

It is the duty of the board to

(a)

ensure that the functions of the Corporation are performed efficiently and with the maximum benefit to the people of Australia;

(b)

to maintain the independence and integrity of the Corporation;

(c)

to ensure that the gathering and presentation by the Corporation of news and information is accurate and impartial according to the recognized standards of objective journalism ...

The proposed abolition of the staff elected director position on the ABC board will not improve the governance of the ABC, it will not ensure the efficient functioning of the ABC and it most certainly will not maintain the independence and integrity of the ABC. I doubt that it will make the news impartial and accurate according to the standards of ethical journalism. In spirit and in law, the ABC is meant to be independent. This bill continues the attack on the ABC the government has conducted since 1996. (Time expired)

See this speech in context