Annette Ellis (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise this evening to speak on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment Bill 2006. The aim of this bill is to remove the position of the staff elected director from the board of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the ABC. Labor oppose this bill because this change is just another example of how we see the Howard government is crushing the independence of the ABC.

This battle between the coalition, to destroy the ABC as we know it, and the Labor Party, to strengthen the ABC, has been going on for many years. The Whitlam government introduced the first staff elected position on the governing board of the ABC back in 1975. The Fraser government subsequently abolished the position. The Hawke government created the current position in 1986. Therefore it comes as no surprise that the Howard government is now trying to remove that position. Unfortunately, with a majority in the Senate, the Prime Minister is simply using his power once again and will end up giving what we believe is another blow to the ABC.

And what excuse is the government giving for this appalling attack on the ABC? The explanatory memorandum for the amendment states:

The Bill addresses an ongoing tension relating to the position of staff elected Director. A potential conflict exists between the duties of the staff elected Director under paragraph 23(1)(a) of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 to act in good faith in the best interests of the ABC, and the appointment of that Director via election by ABC staff. The election method creates a risk that a staff elected Director will be expected by the constituents who elect him or her to place the interests of staff ahead of the interests of the ABC as a whole where they are in conflict.

I ask: is there any evidence to show that this conflict—some special form of conflict—actually exists? I believe not. Firstly, the ABC is not the only Commonwealth authority with a staff elected board member, unbeknownst to the previous speaker. Other Commonwealth statutory organisations with staff elected positions on their governing bodies include the Australian National University, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and the Australian Film, Television and Radio School. Secondly, the legal duty of these board members is to the organisation, not to the people whom they represent, and they are fully aware of this.

To defend this appalling amendment the government has used the Uhrig report, which examined the governance practices of statutory authorities in 2003. The report stated that representational appointments are not consistent with modern principles of corporate governance. But this argument is a sham. The Uhrig review did not specifically examine staff elected appointments, nor did it give any attention to the ABC. The focus of the review was on agencies with critical business relationships, such as the ATO, the ACCC, APRA, ASIC and the RBA.

This bill was referred to the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee, which went on to report in May 2006. The Labor, Greens and Democrats senators submitted a dissenting report opposing the bill, and this does not happen lightly. The inquiry examined the unwillingness of the current staff elected director, Ms Ramona Koval, to sign certain ABC protocols. During the inquiry, however, no evidence was produced that any staff elected director had breached their obligations to act in the best interests of the ABC. The report states:

1.18 The staff elected director defended her action in not signing the protocol:

It was about independence. It was about having my decisions and opinions subsumed to the opinions of the rest of the board—so that went to independence, which is an absolute core issue as far as a director of a corporation is concerned. I did not want to be in breach of the law, frankly.

In fact, the Senate committee heard a number of examples where the staff elected director opposed proposals that would have benefited staff, because they would have undermined the independence of the ABC—quite contrary to the argument being put.

There are already remedies available under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act for a breach of director’s duties. In addition, the Governor-General can dismiss a director for misbehaviour. The evidence received by the Senate committee demonstrated that staff elected directors have brought considerable experience in broadcasting to the deliberations of the board.

Clearly, this bill is the latest instalment in what we see as the Howard government’s decade-long attempt to undermine the very independence of the ABC. For 10 years, the government has worked to stack the ABC board with its political mates to try and control the ABC. The staff elected director makes an important contribution to the ABC’s corporate governance. The staff elected director is able to give the board an important insight into ABC operations. Particularly with the current board, the staff elected director is sometimes the only person with the expertise to question the advice coming from the ABC’s executive. If the government were really serious about improving the ABC’s corporate governance, it would end the practice of stacking the board with political friends.

Since 2003, Labor has argued that there should be an open and transparent process for making appointments to the ABC board. Vacancies should be advertised and there should be clear merit based selection criteria. An independent selection panel should conduct the short-list selection process. The selection of the short list would be independent of the minister. If the minister does not appoint a short-listed candidate, he or she should have to table in parliament a formal statement of the reasons for departing from the short list. Labor’s policy would enhance our democracy by strengthening the very independence of the ABC, the base for the discussion in this legislation.

Another way in which the Howard government has undermined the ABC has been through funding. While the budget contained some increases in funding, the appropriation fell well short of the amount requested by the ABC and identified by KPMG as necessary to maintain existing services. According to media reports, the KPMG funding adequacy review found that the ABC needs an extra $125 million above inflation over the next three years just to sustain the current range of services. In my view, it is a disgrace that the minister continues to try and hide the extent of ABC underfunding and refuses to release that KPMG report so that Australians around the country can assess the government’s performance for themselves.

The government’s failure to restore adequate funding means that the ABC will be forced to cut services or—and it is a big ‘or’—look to alternative sources of revenue, such as advertising on its websites. That is a very alarming path down which to travel, and one that we should all be very concerned about even seeing in consideration.

Labor is seeking further information from the ABC on the likely impact of the funding shortfall during the current Senate estimates process. We welcome the additional funding for the production of Australian content. The problem is that the government granted only half the amount requested by the ABC. The new money will allow the ABC to produce around 28 hours a year of new content. As a result, Australian drama production is likely to remain at less than half the level it was five years ago. I do not know how any government can be proud of that sort of record when we think about our public broadcaster.

Regrettably, the government has passed up the opportunity to use the ABC as a vehicle to promote the creation of exciting new digital content. The ABC’s proposal to stimulate interest in digital television and broadband through an extra 200 hours of digital only content was completely rejected. The Howard government’s chronic underfunding of the ABC is depriving Australians of the world class news, information and entertainment services that they expect and deserve.

I am extremely disappointed with the way in which the Howard government has treated the ABC over the past 10 long years, and many of my constituents in the electorate of Canberra have written to me with similar views. We also in the ACT have a very active Friends of the ABC organisation, one that I hold up as a great defender of public broadcasting not only in this city but in this country. The people of Canberra are strong supporters of the ABC and they will be very saddened—pretty appalled, I think—at this bill, which is driven by the Howard government’s extreme ideology and its desire to control the ABC.

I cannot conclude my remarks without responding to the comments of the previous speaker, the member for Herbert, about his disappointment at the methodology in one of the cases he referred to involving the ABC’s Canberra news service. I find it ironic in the extreme that the member for Herbert, with the greatest of respect, was a little bit miffed that part of a quote from him was used and part of the quote was not. We have that happen in this House every day by the government towards us. Every time we make a personal explanation to correct it, it comes back and it is done to us again. Maybe he needs to talk to his backbench about misrepresentation rather than just thinking about the ABC.

How many times do members in this House have to stand up and make personal explanations because of the way the media generally, not just the ABC—in fact, I do not think I have ever heard the ABC mentioned; but I have heard media mentioned: print media, the lot—misrepresent, misquote or quote by selection certain comments made by any one of a range of members in this very place. I thought that was a little bit precious. To be quite frank, that is not the sort of argument upon which you base legislation through which you are removing a democratically elected member of the ABC board. It is a pretty weak argument to put up, and I could not let it go without making some remarks on it.

In my view, and in the view of the Labor Party, the ABC is a significant and valuable Australian institution. It plays a vital role in our culture. It allows us to see ourselves in our own culture. Millions of Australians watch the ABC to be entertained. But many also rely on the ABC for the very diversity it provides. Many of us do not want to watch Big Brother and a lot of that other reality TV hogwash that appears through commercial channels. Thank God for the ABC—all power to it. At least it is given the right, with the proper funding and the proper governance, to produce the sort of drama that builds our industry in this country and does not destroy it. We rely on it so much for high-quality children’s programs, learning programs, great Australian drama and comedy, current affairs, world news and independent journalism. It is not at all unusual that a journalist from somewhere might have a view different to one put by somebody in this place. That does not mean bias; it means another opinion.

See this speech in context