John Murphy (Lowe, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

Following the announcement in March 2006 by the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts concerning her plans to restructure the board of the ABC, many held hopes of legitimate reform. It would not be naive to assume that many supporters of the ABC believed the minister’s statement to imply that the government was making a belated yet genuine attempt to ensure that the ABC’s corporate governance arrangements reflected community demands for a vibrant and independent national broadcaster. Such a restructure ought to have provided greater scrutiny of board appointments while restraining the practice of the government to stack the board with its political mates. Tragically, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment Bill 2006 achieves neither of these laudable objectives.

Before voicing my stern opposition to this bill, it would be instructive to analyse what it does not do. The bill has failed to implement an open and transparent process for making government appointments to the ABC board. Given the minister’s apparent intention that the bill ensure that all board members act in the best interests of the ABC rather than in the interests of those who have put them on the board, it is inconceivable that she could have any objection to a process that would advertise all board vacancies and ensure that any selection is based on merit rather than on the basis of political patronage.

It is no stretch of the imagination to suggest that this government has been unjustifiably sensitive to the ABC’s overt independence and has responded in kind by catapulting onto the board people with whom it has networked or who are close to it. One only need look to recent appointments, including Michael Kroger and Ron Brunton, to realise that the government is doing all it can to reel in what it considers to be an unruly child. It is clear that the government would prefer the ABC to be biased—but biased in favour of its ideology and philosophy.

If the government were serious about resolving the so-called tension between the obligation of directors to act in the best interests of the public broadcaster and their obligation to serve the interests of those who elected them to their positions, it would have provided a framework for board appointments to be made objectively. For years, Labor has been calling for a truly independent selection panel to undertake a short-list selection process for board appointments. This short list would be independent of any minister and would limit the circumstances in which political stooges could be appointed to the board. That there should be clear merit based selection criteria is something that all ABC supporters can agree on. That such a proposal has not been adopted by the government demonstrates that the intent of this bill is not, as the minister suggests, ‘to improve the ABC’s corporate governance’.

The question must then be asked: what exactly does this bill restructure? The minister’s restructure consists of just one measure: a proposal to abolish the position of staff elected representative on the ABC board. It is no coincidence that the staff elected position has been targeted for termination. It is the one appointment to the board of the ABC that the government cannot control. Despite the protestations of the minister, this bill has nothing to do with improving corporate governance whatsoever but is just the latest instalment in this government’s epic battle to undermine the independence of the ABC. Naturally, the minister denies this and refers to section 78(6) of the ABC Act, which states:

... the Corporation is not subject to direction by or on behalf of the Government of the Commonwealth.

This is a disingenuous attempt to employ shallow words to give soothing assurances that the ABC has and always will be independent while underhandedly destroying the few structures in place that give effect to such words. Recent events demonstrate that words are insufficient to protect the ABC’s independence. In spite of section 78(6) of the ABC Act, I note a report by Louise Dobson in the Sydney Morning Herald of 9 May this year. That report suggests that the ABC board had short-listed an individual to take over the role of managing director and run it past the government only to be told to try again.

Indeed, in recent days, as we now know, Mark Scott—a former chief political adviser to the Liberal state education minister, Terry Metherell—has been announced as the ABC’s new managing director. Is it a coincidence that, according to reports in the Sydney Morning Herald of 22 May this year, Mr Scott is said to be on good terms with the minister for communications? With the abolition of the staff elected position, one wonders whether this will be the only way to be elected to the ABC board of directors—that is, by being on good terms with the minister. So much for the section 78(6) requirement of being ‘not subject to direction by or on behalf of the government’.

The few structures in place that promote independence, including the staff elected representative position, are needed now more than ever. Our national broadcaster is at the crossroads. The government has made a decision on the ABC’s funding, which is not enough to sustain basic programming needs and is substantially less than that recommended by an independent report by KPMG. The board has just announced its new managing director who will be instrumental in determining the ABC’s long-term direction, including whether advertising will be permitted on our national broadcaster. That should be of grave concern to all of us. I draw the minister’s attention to my letter published in today’s Financial Review on that very topic.

There exists now more than ever a need for a director who better understands and is entirely committed to the ABC’s charter to inform, educate, entertain and enhance a sense of national identity. Moves to commercially exploit the ABC, which have not been ruled out by Mr Scott, will be much harder to resist without a staff elected director to act as a charter safeguard. There exists now more than ever a need for a director who better understands the unique nature of the ABC. Most private companies would envy the passion and loyalty that characterise the relationship of staff elected directors with the ABC; the government begrudges it.

Perhaps the government understands only too well the inexorable nexus between the interests of the ABC and the passion and loyalty held by many members of its staff. In light of the government’s devastating funding arrangements and mooted desire to permit advertising on the public broadcaster, it makes sense for the government to eradicate the largest stumbling block to alleviating the pain in its hip pocket. Indeed, the minister has expressed an interest in allowing the ABC to become a rating-chasing, revenue-raising body at the expense of diversity in children’s, religious, science, health, music, drama, documentary, comedy, news and current affairs programming. There can be no doubt that the staff elected director, who is the only board member with the expertise to cross-examine advice coming from the ABC executive, is a monumental thorn in the side of the Howard government. Professor Ken Inglis, a leading authority on the organisation, has stated that the:

... staff elected director has exercised more influence ... than any other single director, apart from the chairman and deputy chair.

In light of the government’s plans for the ABC, is it any wonder that it seeks to destroy this position? Putting aside the government’s clandestine intention, Senator Coonan, the communications minister, has also failed to bring forward evidence that supports the public position taken by the government in respect of this bill. The minister’s explanatory memorandum to the bill quotes a report of June 2003 by John Uhrig, entitled Review of the corporate governance of statutory authorities and office holders. Relevantly, the minister’s explanatory memorandum quotes the Uhrig report’s conclusion:

The Review does not support representational appointments to governing boards as representational appointments can fail to produce independent and objective views. There is the potential for these appointments to be primarily concerned with the interests of those they represent, rather than the success of the entity they are responsible for governing.

At face value, this statement provides compelling evidence in favour of the abolition of the staff elected director position. The minister has spoken publicly of a concern that staff elected directors could feel obliged to represent the interests of the staff who elected them rather than to act in the best interests of the ABC. An inquiry into the bill by the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee proves this to be anything but the case. Indeed, the Senate committee has heard numerous examples of where a staff elected director has opposed measures that may have benefited staff but which have jeopardised the independence of the ABC. This is perhaps best seen with a staff elected director’s exposure of backdoor sponsorship infotainment programs on ABC TV in the 1990s in breach of the ABC Act.

It is hypocritical in the extreme for the government to be casting aspersions on staff elected directors when it has failed to accept or even acknowledge that members of the board appointed by the government have a far greater potential for conflict of interest than has been shown to exist for any director that staff have elected to the position. It clearly does not suit the government to acknowledge the passion and loyalty that characterises the relationship of staff elected directors with the ABC. Doing so would bring into question the passion, loyalty and bona fides held by those appointed by the government itself. Nevertheless, assuming Uhrig’s conclusions, referred to in the explanatory memorandum, are true, it is interesting to note that his findings on this matter only made up one page of a 133-page report. Furthermore, Mr Uhrig made no reference to the ABC anywhere in his report. It is also interesting that Mr Uhrig’s comment that ‘there are no universally accepted structures and practices that constitute good governance’ did not find its way into the minister’s explanatory memorandum. I ask why.

It would be pertinent to note the comments of another expert in governance at this point. Professor Stephen Bartos, Director of the National Institute for Governance, has stated that the choice of governance model to be adopted for a public sector body should not be formulaic but should be driven by the objectives of the organisation concerned. Clearly, should the Howard government see the ABC as operating in a similar manner to other commercial television and radio stations, a governance structure espoused by Uhrig may be justified. However, if we are to continue to conceive of the ABC as being a different sort of body—a community based body which is not interested in rising ratings and raising revenue—having representative directors onboard is entirely appropriate.

If the government is serious about fostering the independent spirit which resides within the ABC, it must maintain the only position over which it has no control: the staff elected director. The staff elected director is the one voice which has exposed past board attempts to tie the ABC to commercial arrangements which would corrupt its public purpose. It is the one voice that has done most to protect the integrity of the ABC charter. It is the one voice that can exercise genuine independence in all board decisions. And it has done that with distinction when we were in government.

Given the absence of merit based selection criteria for board appointments made by the government, the staff elected director also brings much needed practical broadcasting experience and insight into the boardroom discussion of policy and operational procedures. Given the board selection process, such experience and insight may otherwise have been missing from boardroom discussions. There has long been a concern that the government has made no effort to select board members with an appropriate mix of skills for running a national broadcaster. Indeed, similar concerns were raised by a highly unlikely source: former Senator Richard Alston, as Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on ABC Management and Operations. He said, inter alia:

The current ABC is required to make decisions with long-term implications in a time of overwhelmingly rapid transformation of broadcasting technology. The board’s task may have been made more difficult by the fact that many of its members have little specialist knowledge of either the broadcasting industry or the new technologies. The committee believes that the board as a whole lacks the range of depth of skills and experience which would be necessary to provide adequate leadership for the ABC.

The staff elected director has this specialist knowledge of the ABC and the broadcasting industry. The staff elected director has the range of skills and experience which is necessary to provide leadership of the ABC. What the staff elected director does not have is the capacity to succumb to this government’s extreme and destructive plans for the ABC.

The staff elected director position has served the ABC well. Far from deserving to be abolished, the position ought to be retained in the ABC’s governance structure. I congratulate Mr Quentin Dempster on his election again to the board because he, more than anyone, has been an ornament to the public broadcaster. I do not think anyone in this House would quarrel with the integrity of Mr Quentin Dempster.

A vote for this bill is almost certainly a vote for the commercial exploitation and political manipulation of the ABC, given the ease with which it can occur without the watchful eye of a staff elected director. As taxpayers and viewers, we deserve to see our public broadcaster better protected against such manipulation and coercion. To make this bill into law would fail Australia’s most important national institution as well as the millions of Australians who rely on the ABC for news, information, entertainment and education.

For as long as I remain a member of this parliament, you can be sure that I will continue to fight against this government’s vitriolic and unjustified attacks on our public broadcaster. I encourage any true supporters of the ABC who are sitting on the other side of this chamber to do the same. I reject this nonsense that is always thrown at the ABC about its so-called bias. I well remember Neville Wran, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating complaining about the ABC. Of course, any government will complain when the public broadcaster runs an editorial contrary to a policy position of the government of the day, whether it be federal or state. So the politicisation of the ABC continues.

The government are prepared to allow the ABC to raise its revenue to supplement its budget. We all know that, apart from the concerns that we all have with regard to compromising the independence of the ABC, once the government rely on revenue being drawn from the corporate sector, the government will take that amount of money out of their budget for the ABC. So it will be a neutral position; the ABC will not gain anything. Moreover, I think this is quite a serious matter at a time when the government are about to change our media ownership laws and hand over our democracy to Mr Packer and Mr Murdoch. That should be of great concern to all of us. I call on all members of this House, in particular the members of the government, to come to their senses, support the independence of the ABC and support Mr Quentin Dempster in his campaign. I reject this bill. (Time expired)

See this speech in context