Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did not intend to speak in this debate on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment Bill 2006 but, listening to contributions from those opposite, I thought that there needed to be a few things put on the table about some of the issues they have raised. One of the great arguments seems to be that there should not be any change to the board of the ABC and that action against the representative of the staff, whose position seems to be being removed, is of great detriment to the ABC. I have been thinking very carefully about boards. I remember belonging to a sugar milling board in New South Wales, but there were no representatives of staff on that board. There are no representatives of staff on the boards of many of the big companies in Australia, so I think that some of the arguments are fallacious.

Another argument put forward, which I found rather quaint in the extreme—‘quaint’ is probably too soft a word for it—was that the staff member would be able to alert the Australian public to things that might be going on in the board of the ABC. I would think that would be a breach of secrecy of a matter of the board. From my knowledge of boards, the board’s chair is its spokesperson and any statement to be made about issues discussed on the board is made, on behalf of the board, by him or her. I would have thought that anyone going out and white-anting the board would be acting extremely against the principles of the board itself. In the corporate world, as far as I understand it, they could even be breaking the law.

The member for Lowe asserted that the government was stacking the board with its cronies, which rings a bell, as I dare say most oppositions talk about this from time to time. I have been there once myself—but, thankfully, for only three years in my whole political career. But aren’t we pure in opposition? We are very pure in opposition. I distinctly remember the Hawke government appointing Bill Kelty to the board of the ABC. That is a far cry from the independent nominations being suggested at present by the opposition. Much of the argument coming from the other side about some of these issues is cant and nonsense.

The member for Lowe also raised an interesting point, which I think needs discussing, about the director elect of the ABC, Mr Quentin Dempster, being a person of high standing and, therefore, eminently suitable to be on the board of the ABC. I happen to know Mr Quentin Dempster very well. I was in the parliament of New South Wales when he shifted from Brisbane to Sydney. He and a fellow journalist—I do not know whether they worked together in Brisbane—a man called Mr Murray Hogarth, came to Sydney with their egos inflated, saying that they had done over the Bjelke-Petersen government in Queensland and they had come down to New South Wales to do the same to the Nationals there. If Mr Quentin Dempster is to be on the board, we should understand some of the methods he uses as a journalist. I happen to have been close to some of the stories he ran—very close. In fact, I was the principal involved in one particular story. At that time, I was the member for Clarence and a minister in the Greiner government.

Some years before the running of this story, I had owned and then sold the Ryan Hotel in the town of Lismore. However, The 7.30 Report decided it would do a story on this hotel based on pub gossip around that town. This story was a rather good one. It involved a great conspiracy among a senior minister of the Greiner government—I used to fluctuate from being a senior minister to a junior minister, depending on the story or the day—Mr Harold Fredericks, the Mayor of Lismore and a National Party member, and Mr Elton Stone, a lawyer in that town and another prominent National. We were all involved in this conspiracy regarding the redevelopment of the Ryan Hotel.

I am well aware of what is supposed to be the journalists’ code of ethics. I wonder at times whether any of the journalists in this instance have read that code. However, the journalists’ code of ethics states very proudly that, before running a story, journalists should look at all sides of it. Did Mr Murray Hogarth or Mr Quentin Dempster ring me? No. Did they go to Mr Fredericks, at that time the Mayor of Lismore, and get his side of the story? No. Did they go to Mr Elton Stone, a senior lawyer in Lismore and the other proponent of the redevelopment? No. They ran their story, of which not one scrap was correct. It was fiction. They did not bother to look at the other side of the story.

Mr Quentin Dempster wants to thank his lucky stars that, at that time, all my time was engaged in proceedings against the Sydney Morning Herald, because Murray Hogarth had also written a story about me in the Sydney Morning Herald using the same principles—not checking the facts or coming to me and getting my side of the story. I won that court case against the Sydney Morning Herald for those simple reasons. It never had a feather to fly with, because it did not have any facts. Mr Quentin Dempster wants to thank his lucky stars that I was busy with the Sydney Morning Herald. If I had not been, he also would have been in the dock and, I am sure, would have experienced the same result—except that, after I had been through one court case, my wife did not have the stomach for me to go through another, I can assure you. That is what they rely on. They rely on the average person not being able to take them on and exhausting their funds before they can win. They are the methods of this person who is being put up for the board of the ABC.

So I have to ask those opposite to show me a journalist that abides by the journalists’ code of ethics, which is a very responsible thing to do. In any free and democratic society, journalists play a very important role, especially investigative journalists. But, as the fourth estate, they also hold a huge responsibility to put both sides of the story; otherwise, we may as well live in a totalitarian society. Both sides of the story must be put. In my lifetime in politics—now, after 23 years, it seems like a lifetime—I have seen the standard of journalism slip substantially. When I first went into the New South Wales parliament, the ABC was pre-eminent. The ABC’s standard of journalism was second to none, I would say. I remember its news broadcasts; there was not a hint of bias either way. It gave you the news. Standards have changed in journalism. With any board of the ABC, it is not about bias from one side or the other; it is about a standard. I think any new board of the ABC needs to look closely at that because it is a very important part of our democracy.

In the broader media over time, by-lines have been introduced whereby journalists write stories that really are editorials. Our papers are full of editorials these days. Some of today’s talkback programs, with the misinformation they peddle, are like sessions of gossip over the back fence—and, in many instances, they are about as factual. However, the people who run these talkback programs say, ‘We’re not journalists, so we’re not bound by the journalists’ code of ethics.’ That is an anomaly that has slipped into our system that we need to look closely at. People are listening to this nonsense all the time—and, as Goebbels once said, if you hear something often enough you will believe it. The ABC’s board is extremely important to the ABC as an organisation. It is a good organisation, but I think it needs to understand that it has to respect the society and democracy in which it lives and the standard it should set—and I do not believe it sets that standard at present.

Peter Andren (Calare, Independent) Share this | Link to 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.

De-Anne Kelly (Dawson, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to sum up the debate on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment Bill 2006. I would like to particularly acknowledge the contributions of the members for Kingsford Smith, Oxley, Banks, Canberra, Adelaide, Charlton, Canning, Herbert, Page and Calare. This bill amends the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983, the ABC Act, to abolish the staff-elected director and staff-elected deputy director positions. The position of a staff-elected director is not common amongst Australian government agency boards. The position at the ABC was introduced in 1975, abolished in 1978, reintroduced in 1983 and given legislative backing in 1985. It is worth noting that the SBS board does not include a staff-elected director.

Despite the comments made by the member for Adelaide, the reality is that the position of a staff-elected director is not consistent with the modern principles of corporate governance and a tension relating to the position on the ABC board has existed for many years. The tension between the expectations of staff and the duties of a director is manifest in the potential conflict that exists between the duties of the staff-elected director, under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997, to act in good faith and in the best interests of the ABC. The appointment of that director is as a representative of ABC staff and elected by them.

This 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 where they are in conflict. This matter was recognised in the June 2003 review of the corporate governance of statutory authorities and officeholders, otherwise known as the Uhrig review. That review concluded:

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.

On a practical level, this has led to difficulties in respect of board confidentiality, and the ABC staff-elected director felt unable to agree to a revised board protocol that dealt with, amongst other things, the handling of confidential information.

The staff-elected director is placed in a conflicted position if there are expectations that confidential information will be conveyed to constituents in potential breach of obligations to the ABC. This is an untenable position for the board. It is worth noting that a tension surrounding the position on the ABC board has existed for many years. In 2004 this led to the resignation of a director of the highest calibre, Mr Maurice Newman.

During the recent Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee hearings on the bill, a former staff-elected director confirmed that staff-elected directors are at times placed under pressure by staff to act in ways which are not consistent with their roles as directors. The government is of the view that there should be no question about the constituency ABC directors are accountable to. In order to resolve this problem, the government has decided to abolish the staff-elected director position.

During debate on the bill it was suggested by the member for Kingsford Smith that the Uhrig review was not applicable to the ABC. That assertion is incorrect. The Uhrig review was given a very broad brief, and its findings are relevant across government. The terms of reference of the review were clear, and I will restate them now:

A key task was to develop a broad template of governance principles that, subject to consideration by government, might be extended to all statutory authorities and office holders. ... the review was asked to consider the governance structures of a number of specific statutory authorities and best practice corporate governance structures in both the public and private sectors.

Although the Uhrig review itself focused on particular agencies, its principles are considered generally applicable and all statutory authorities are being considered in relation to them. The proposed change in the bill is consistent with the Uhrig review’s conclusions about representative appointments. The position is also endorsed by Professor Stephen Bartos, Director of the National Institute for Governance. Professor Bartos said in his submission to the Senate committee that the removal of the staff-elected director ‘is consistent with the current corporate governance approach found in most Australian companies and increasingly in public sector bodies’.

There is a clear legal requirement on the staff-elected director that means he or she has the same rights and duties as the other directors, which includes acting in the interests of the ABC as a whole. The government is of the view that there should be no question about the constituency to which ABC directors are accountable. The bill resolves these tensions by abolishing the staff-elected director position. Contrary to suggestions made by some, this change will contribute to the efficient functioning of the ABC board. It is in line with modern corporate governance principles and will provide greater consistency in governance arrangements for Australian government agencies. The bill is intended to give effect to the abolition of the staff-elected director position as close as possible to the expiry of the term of the current staff-elected director. The abolition of the staff-elected director has nothing to do with individuals. This announcement is about ensuring the efficient functioning of the ABC board.

The member for Canberra claimed during this debate that the abolition of the staff-elected director will impact on the independence of the ABC. That assertion must be rejected. The removal of the staff-elected director in no way impacts on the independence of the ABC. The independence of the ABC is enshrined in legislation. Section 78(6) of the ABC Act states:

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

Section 8(1)(b) of the ABC Act makes it a duty of the board to maintain the integrity and independence of the corporation. Accordingly, it is the duty of all board members to maintain the ABC’s independence and integrity, irrespective of the existence of a staff-elected director position.

As was clearly articulated by the member for Herbert, on the subject of independence it is worth noting that the Howard government has made a major commitment to the funding of public broadcasting in Australia and has substantially increased ABC funding since 1997. It is the first government to give the ABC additional money for programming since the mid-1980s. In the 2006-07 budget, the government announced that the ABC would receive significant new funding in the 2006-09 triennium. The government confirmed that it would maintain the ABC’s triennial base funding in real terms, in line with its election commitment. In addition, the government announced that the ABC will receive $88.2 million for new initiatives over the next three years. This increased funding means that in 2006-07 the ABC will receive total funding from the Australian government of $822.7 million. For the three years to 2008-09, government funding to the ABC will total nearly $2.5 billion.

This budget outcome has been welcomed by the Chairman of the ABC and others as the best for the ABC in more than 20 years—a point which I would say was well made by the member for Canning. This increased funding is a clear demonstration of the Howard government’s commitment to ensuring that the ABC remains independent and that it is able to continue to deliver the quality programming and high standard of service that Australians have come to expect.

Another of the arguments raised by the other side in support of retaining the staff-elected director position is that previous staff-elected directors have been influential in preventing commercial decisions that would have been damaging to the ABC. While it may well be that these individuals played a role in these decisions, I note that the ultimate decisions were decisions of the whole board and that, without detailed knowledge of the workings of the ABC board, it is very difficult for anyone to accurately apportion credit for these decisions.

The issue of the consideration of staff issues by the ABC board has already been raised by the member for Adelaide and the member for Canberra. The ABC chairman has indicated publicly that the ABC board and management will continue to take staff interests into account as they do already. Further, the managing director is a full member of the ABC board and a conduit between staff, management and the board. I note that a new Managing Director of the ABC, Mr Mark Scott, has recently been appointed. Mr Scott has considerable media and management experience. Further, the heads of the ABC divisions report regularly to the board. Therefore—responding to concerns raised by the member for Oxley and the member for Charlton—there are obviously ways other than having a staff-elected director by which the board can consult with ABC staff about issues concerning them.

Much has been made during the debate about the previous experience of directors on the ABC board. I would like to draw the attention of members to the criteria set out in section 12(5) of the ABC Act regarding the process by which the government appoints ABC directors. One of these criteria is ‘experience in connection with the provision of broadcasting services or in communications or management’. Several of the current board members have experience in connection with broadcasting, despite the assertions by the member for Canberra. For example, the deputy chair, John Gallagher, was a director of a regional television broadcaster, Mackay Television, for 16 years from 1971 until 1987, and Mr Steven Skala was a director of the Channel 10 group from 1993 until 1998. There are a number of ways that the board can have regard and access to practical broadcasting experience in making decisions, irrespective of the board membership. So to say that the ABC board is deficient in broadcasting experience is a tenuous argument at best.

It has been suggested also that the ABC is a unique organisation and should be immune to the principles of good corporate governance mentioned in the Uhrig report. I am advised, however, that it is not at all common for Australian government agencies to have staff-elected representatives on their governing bodies. The only exceptions to this rule that we are aware of are educational and statistical institutions such as the Australian National University, the Australian Film, Television and Radio School and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. I note that most Australian higher education institutions include both staff and student representatives on their governing bodies. These organisations are quite different from the ABC, which is a national broadcaster intended to serve all Australians. Further, as I have already noted, the other national broadcaster, the SBS, does not have a staff-elected director.

During the debate there have also been suggestions that the board appointments process should be changed to something resembling the method used for appointing governors of the BBC, involving what are called the Nolan rules. The current appointment process, which is set out in section 12 of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act, provides that appointments to the ABC board are made by the Governor-General. This method of appointment reflects standard practice for Commonwealth statutory authorities. The government seeks to meet the criteria set out in the ABC Act and to ensure that the members of the ABC board have a mix of skills appropriate to the running of a modern corporation with an annual budget in excess of $800 million.

The Nolan rules are a method of board appointment based on recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life—the Nolan committee. Under the rules, appointments are made on the basis of recommendations provided by an independent advisory panel in accordance with the code of practice. The two most recent appointments to the BBC chairmanship, Mr Gavin Davies and Mr Michael Grade, have been recommended to the government by a panel chosen by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport consistent with the code of practice laid down by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

It is worth noting, with respect to the argument to adopt the Nolan rules to avoid the appointment of board members who are too closely associated with a political party, that a Nolan’s rules type process will not necessarily deal with this issue. I note that that argument has been put forward by the member for Kingsford Smith and others. In September 2001 Mr Gavin Davies was appointed Chairman of the BBC under the Nolan rules. Mr Davies was a Labour Party member and a long-time ministerial advisor to Labour governments in the United Kingdom. The appointment was criticised by the UK opposition as calling into question the BBC’s political impartiality. The government is committed to the existing appointments process and considers that it works well.

In conclusion, I would like to remind the House of the government’s attitude towards the ABC. The Howard government supports an independent, successful ABC that delivers high-quality programming to Australian audiences. The recent budget outcome that will deliver the ABC funding in the order of $2.5 billion over the next three years is a clear demonstration of that support. The removal of a staff-elected director in no way compromises the independence of the ABC. The government has taken a decision to abolish the position of the ABC staff-elected director for sound reasons. I particularly commend the contributions of the member for Canning, the member for Herbert and the member for Page in this regard. The government is of the view that there should be no question about the constituency to which ABC directors are accountable and therefore supports the abolition of the position of ABC staff-elected director. I commend the bill to the House.

Question put:

That this bill be now read a second time.