Peter Andren (Calare, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I listened with interest to the member for Page and his comments. I want to put some sense of perspective into the debate about the media, having been a long-time participant in both city and regional media. It is pretty easy to paint a picture of general bias against the media, against the ABC and against the commercial newspapers and to discredit the messenger. I would agree to some extent that talkback radio, in particular in the last two decades, has developed a distinct lack of objectivity around its product. But if people recognise it for what it is, which is three hours of absolute beat-up in the morning or late at night, and then take it with a grain of salt, you cannot get too concerned about it in a free speech environment. I would suggest the growth of comment in the media generally has coincided with the growth in the use of spin from governments and from the governing elite. If we are going to talk about the distortion of messages by bias or anything else then I think it is fair to have a close examination of the devices that are used by governments and their manipulation of the media to exploit the last ounce of propaganda from whichever side of politics happens to be spinning the message.

In his second reading speech, the minister stated that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment Bill 2006, which abolishes the position of staff-elected director of the ABC, ensures that there is no question about the constituency to which ABC directors are accountable. This seems extraordinary given that the remainder of the board, up to seven directors, is appointed by the government in a process that lacks any sort of transparency or accountability measure. It is this government-appointed board that appoints the managing director. Like previous Labor governments, so too has this government made blatantly political appointments to the board, a number of whom have impeccable pro-conservative political connections. Certainly, the board-appointed managing directors have also held very strong party political connections—a trend that began 30 years ago.

It has hardly had much impact though on the independence of the ABC broadcasters. I well remember Jane Singleton abruptly terminating a conversation with Bob Hawke when he was adding nothing of any further value to the question under debate. I remember too being told by the late Tony Ferguson that my application to join This Day Tonight, of which he was executive producer, had been rejected during the McMahon government days not because I was not regarded, at least by the executive producer, as the best applicant but because an order had come forth from Canberra that new current affairs appointments in that pre-election period were not to be made from outside and any promotions or appointments were to be made internally. It may not have been a very sinister directive, but it was a directive to the management of the ABC, 30 or more years ago, about how they were to construct their reporting teams.

Now it seems all board appointments have to be made internally—internal to the political priorities of the government. In its explanatory memorandum to this bill, the government states that there is a risk that a staff-elected director will be expected by the constituents who elect him or her to place their interests ahead of the interests of the ABC as a whole, where they are in conflict. Now there is a deathly silence about the logical extension to this statement which is that the government-appointed directors may also be expected, by the government who appointed them, to place the government’s interests ahead of the interests of the ABC. Is this government then suggesting that an independent staff-elected director is less capable of acting in the ABC’s best interests first and foremost than a pro-government-appointed director? Is the government claiming that a staff-elected director is somehow less bound than the other five to seven government-appointed directors by the legal duties and responsibilities that come with a position clearly framed in both the ABC Act and the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act? Is the government suggesting that the legal provision to enact action to remedy any impropriety is somehow not applicable to the staff-elected director? Dare I raise any questions about the political connections and independence of the newly appointed managing director? Is there any reason that Mr Scott’s own close historical connections with the Liberal Party should hamper his ability to carry out his role with integrity and aplomb, as have others before him? Does the tension the minister refers to relate to the position of staff-elected director or does it relate to the ABC’s own fierce fight to remain independent from the influence of the government of the day or other vested interests? The minister suggests this bill is informed by the 2003 Uhrig review, which he claims:

... does not support representational appointments to governing boards—

as they run the risk of representing—

the interests of those they represent—

heavens above—

rather than the success of the entity they are responsible for governing.

We are talking about a publicly funded organisation here rather than a pure corporation in the true sense of the word. Regardless of what opinion one has about Mr Uhrig’s review—there was certainly no shortage of reviews criticising its lack of vigour—this interpretation by the minister is a total misrepresentation of that report. Mr Uhrig’s terms of reference were restricted to focusing on only seven statutory authorities and not the ABC. They were the ATO, ACCC, APRA, RBA, ASIC, HIC and Centrelink, which have critical business relationships.

The review did not investigate staff-elected representation, despite briefly looking at appointments where a board member represents other people, departments or interests—again, within the context of its very limited terms of reference. While Mr Uhrig did not generally support representational appointment to governing bodies within the context he was studying, his review also concluded that any model of corporate governance also needed to take into account the environment in which the organisation is operating.

The review most certainly did not consider the ABC or other Commonwealth statutory organisations with staff-elected positions on their governing bodies. The report did not look at the Australian National University, the Institute of Health and Welfare, the Australian Film Television and Radio School or the myriad other public bodies with representational appointment, as pointed out in the Bills Digest.

So what is this about? Certainly commonsense would dictate the importance of the presence of a staff member on the board to ensure true feedback from the grassroots in order to make fully informed decisions. Or is this about the looming possibility of commercialising the ABC—of advertising revenue paying for the new digital media? Is this about a government, like previous governments, who complain about bias by the ABC, mistaking critical debate and questioning for bias against contentious policies? Is it about the difficulty governments have historically in compromising the ABC’s independence?

I agree with the minister’s view that ‘there should be no question about the constituency to which ABC directors are accountable’. I suggest that this government or any future government apply that rule of thumb to all its ABC appointments. Indeed, as the member for Banks pointed out earlier in this debate, a 2001 inquiry of this parliament supported the retention of a staff-elected director.

Directors such as Quentin Dempster, whatever the member for Page’s problems, recently re-elected but fated not to take up the job, could hardly be accused of any particular bias if you take the time to watch his equal grilling of government and opposition on the Stateline program. My experience is that the ABC and commercial organisations have their in-house or outside contracted defamation lawyers to give advice on contentious programs. Very few executive producers would dare put stuff to air that would risk in a substantial way a defamation action. That goes back very many years. Back when I worked with Channel 9 in the late seventies and in all my period working in regional media I too sought the advice of defamation lawyers. In my case I sought that of the person whom I dealt with when I was producing news in Sydney. No media organisation leaves it to the individual journalist, the individual producer or the line-up sub of a television news program—indeed not to anyone less than the executive producer—to seek that defamation advice. Maybe there are one or two things that do slip through, and they obviously create concern and headlines and settlements ultimately in the court process, and that is as it should be. But to suggest that there is a general lack of balance or bias or to suggest that a media organisation or journalist should not take the route of trying to expose information that they may regard as absolutely essential to the good of the public understanding is dangerous.

The member for Page invoked the image of Goebbels and propaganda and images like that. It is dangerous if we are going to restrict the output of the journalistic resources of the ABC particularly. I say ‘particularly’ because commercial organisations and their journalists and producers are subject too often for comfort to the pressure from their commercial interests to not run stories or to adjust stories so that they do not embarrass the commercial interests of the organisation employing the journalist. That happens in a commercial entity. Heaven forbid that we are going to have a situation where a government appointed and anointed board is going to determine the editorial policy of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, because that is the real danger of not having at least that staff-elected member on the board.

The member for Banks reminded the House of the work put in by the staff-elected director to correctly ward off the influence of commercial interests. With that protector of the public position gone, it seems the way is being laid for full-on commercialisation and, as I have suggested, far more dangerously, the editorial influence that will inevitably come in the absence of—sure—those eyes and ears of a staff-elected board member. That is an essential ingredient, I believe, in achieving a balance and in achieving an absolute guarantee that there is no undue influence being brought to bear on the managing director which is being filtered down to the executive producers of current affairs programs.

I am not going to get into a debate over what, when and by whom bias occurs on the ABC except to say that opinion has gradually and quite subtly crept into all media reporting over the past 20 years. Commercial broadcasting in particular has often favoured the conservative side of politics. There are no complaints there of bias from the government. I have seen Rupert Murdoch swing his editorial policy behind both major political blocs in this country, helping to make and break governments. I have been on the end of a smouldering phone line with Kerry Packer demanding that I rejig live-to-air television news because he did not like the order—not the choice—of my stories during an election campaign.

Paddy McGuinness bewailed in the Australian this week the failure of the new ABC chairman and former Fairfax editor in chief to prevent the Age from disposing of ‘any semblance of balance’, as he put it. Perhaps his own editors should look at his description of ‘every hyperbolic outpouring of hate and prejudice from the ABC’. In condemning the so-called haters, McGuinness displays a hyperbolic hatred of his own. The fact is that, for a large part, bias will always be in the eye of the beholder. The late Richard Carleton floored Bob Hawke with one very direct question, provoking a howl of protest over an honest and accurate query, proving yet again how thin are the skins of government and how desperately we need a non-politicised ABC and a staff member on its board. I oppose this legislation, and I would suggest most country ABC listeners would agree with me.

See this speech in context