Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In following the shadow minister for transport, who was speaking on the ministerial statement about the National Road Safety Council, I welcome that announcement by the government as well. There have been 18 deaths since New Year on the roads in my electorate, including a mother and two daughters in Mount Barker, where I live, and three young guys, 17- and 18-year-olds, in Mount Compass last week on, of all days, Australia Day. It is just a horrific waste of life. Anything we can do in this and another place to reduce that waste of life is to be commended. Thank you for your indulgence in allowing me to speak on that matter, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Before question time interrupted my remarks about the National Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 I was commenting that the opposition has proposed sensible amendments to this bill. The need for reform of the ABC Board could be described as questionable and seems to be largely driven by political biases, rather than any great desire for reform. The ABC under the leadership of Mark Scott, the managing director, is doing an outstanding job. At this point in its history it is clearly delivering better services than it ever has before. It now has three TV stations, one of which is watched quite regularly in my home and delivers children’s TV, something in a previous role I was very supportive of being developed, against the wishes of others who did not want such a service established with government money—but we won that in the end! It is a very good service and is being delivered because the leadership being shown by Mark Scott is outstanding. He is doing a very good job as the Managing Director of the ABC.

It would be very difficult to argue that the ABC has ever been stronger. I am sure there are areas where people will always be critical, but there are not the great complaints about overt bias that we had in the past. The coverage of news and current affairs on the ABC now is as good as it has ever been. Of course there are pockets and patches where people will disagree, and that is always a difficult balancing act for the board of the ABC and, in particular, the managing director. I think the current state of the ABC comes down very much to the direction set by Mark Scott and his team at the ABC, and they are doing a very good job. In South Australia the ABC leads the ratings in the morning slot with the Matt and Dave show. Probably the most difficult political interview that any politician could go through is with Matt Abraham and David Bevan. A great indication of the job they are doing is that both sides of politics allege that they are biased to the other, which is probably a reasonable indication that they are difficult for both sides.

The premise of my contribution to the debate on this bill is that the ABC is not desperately in need of reform at the board level. The bill before the parliament is more about historic battles and the culture wars than it is about a genuine need for reform. That particularly relates to the position of the staff elected director, which is clearly and utterly a conflictive position, as was found by the Uhrig review. Since it was removed in 2006, members on the other side have commented that there was great outrage in the community, that it was a disgraceful move and that it was made because of the great bias of the Howard government. The ABC has never been stronger. There has been no great reduction in services. In fact it has gone the other way—the services have increased. You can get the ABC in more places today, with more specialist new services. The online news delivery by the ABC leads all other news organisations. The news services through digital TV are outstanding. They are about to launch a 24-hour news service. Yes, there is contention amongst other media organisations about that—what a big surprise!

The ABC is leading the way, so what is the great need to reintroduce the staff appointed director to the board again? There is no great need, and it is being driven by the ideological approach taken to this issue by Senator Conroy, which is disappointing from Senator Conroy, who does not usually strike me as someone all that interested in fighting ideological battles. He is more interested in getting himself involved in other, internal battles in the Labor Party than those based on ideology. But on this one he is wrong-footed. It was a bad decision of his to pursue this agenda but it is a very Labor bill, in that it is rewarding supporters and friends of the Labor Party. It is a mistake.

The ABC board is working well; it does not need a staff elected director introduced back onto it. That is why this side of the House has proposed quite reasonable amendments and we hope that the government during this debate is able to come to its senses on this issue and recognise that the ABC has never been stronger. It is stronger, I think, because of decisions and reforms taken over the last 10 or 15 years. It was not all that long ago that we had constant battles about the ABC being biased with respect to one side or the other. We had leaks from the board; we had upheavals with the directors and with the leadership of the ABC. That has not happened recently. We have a good managing director there doing a good job in a well-structured organisation that is—he will disagree with me on this point—well funded. They will always argue that they should get more funding I am sure, but they are doing a good job. That indicates that there has been no great desire or need by the ABC itself to have this reform, instead we are seeing a move from those on the other side for a bit of ideological pleasure.

Secondly, this bill deals with merit-based appointments to the board which sounds, when talking about board appointments whether it be to the ABC, to any other government board or in fact to a public company board, as though you would want people appointed to a board who are of merit. We commonly hear from those on the other side, we have heard it in this debate, references made to Janet Albrechtsen and Keith Windschuttle being appointed to the board of the ABC as if there were some outrageous bias and they were appointed because they are so-called right-wing warriors or whatever else. Always when it comes to these appointments and these debates no matter who is in government and from which side of the perspective it is viewed, bias is in the eye of the beholder. I am sure there are appointments that have been made to the ABC board already and which will occur in the future where members on this side of the House and on our side of politics will allege that they have been made because they are great Labor supporters or, dare I say it, former union officials.

When it comes to a merit based approach to board appointments, it is all very well to put provisions in the act; however, I think governments do make merit based appointments to board positions. They do so because if they do not, they end up with bad boards which become a political embarrassment to them and cause them all sorts of problems. I do not see again a great need for this to be implemented other than giving some cover for appointments that the Labor Party may want to make in the future.

This leads to the final issue in this bill which relates to the banning of former political staff and MPs which seems like a very strange piece of legislation given that there is on other boards, as I understand it, an 18-month cooling-off period applied, which has some merit. There has been debate in the past about former members of this place, particularly where they have had some responsibility, being appointed to boards whether they be government boards or public boards. In fact, the former member for Higgins has recently been appointed to the Future Fund board, which is a great appointment because no-one would know more about the Future Fund than the man who set it up. There are some, I understand, in the Labor caucus who are so not happy about it, but it makes sense that the former Treasurer, the man who came up with the idea for the Future Fund, implemented the Future Fund and believes very strongly in the Future Fund has been appointed to the board. We all welcome that sort of expertise.

Equally for people who participate in public policy in their job for a period of time, I would have thought that after a cooling-off period there was some merit in former members of parliament or, in fact, former senior staff members being appointed to the ABC board to add their experience if that were the decision of the government of the day. The government would of course face criticism if it were someone from their political persuasion and they would probably face criticism from their own if it were someone from the other political persuasion. Banning these appointments seems to be an attempt to get some pats on the back for little purpose. In fact, I think there is a danger of reducing the quality of people who can serve on the board. It would make no sense at all. Where do you stop? You could stop former public servants who have worked closely on media policy from being appointed to the board as well. I am sure some people would not want that sort of restriction on them either.

I do not understand the purpose or the necessity for this decision or the background to it in this country. It seems a strange decision by the government to pursue this line in this legislation and therefore it is a good amendment that has been proposed by this side again to change this provision and make it consistent with the 18-month cooling-off period. I think people who serve in the parliament of this country and move on, as some members have decided to at the next election, have obviously got skills and they should not be disregarded. Too often we jump; as a group, we panic at criticism. In Australia no-one loves anything better than belting into their local MPs, former ministers or prime ministers; it is a great Australian sport. We should be very reluctant as members of this place to encourage that by providing legislative proof that we do not think we are actually worthwhile enough to serve on these sorts of boards. It is a mistake to do that; it adds to the perception that there is some great problem with being a politician. This piece of legislative amendment is a mistake.

With those few remarks I will conclude by again commenting on the strength of our media sector in this country and, certainly, the ABC plays an important part in that. There are those on our side and on the other side of politics who criticise the ABC and criticise particular individuals from time to time. That will forever be thus. The ABC plays a very important role in our media landscape and it does a good job. I am sure many members in this place would be up most Sunday mornings at 9 am watching the show that is probably watched only by people who work in this place, but it provides an important service to our country. I do not see the great need for reform to its board or to its structure. I think this probably highlights that in this case the bill is more about ticking a couple of boxes for election deals done than it is about any great forward thinking by the government.

Kerry Rea (Bonner, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise with pleasure to speak to the National Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 and emphasise that I think it is a very important piece of legislation. The fact that the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has finally brought this legislation before the House demonstrates not just that we as a government are honouring some very important election commitments but reflects very much on the differences between the government and the opposition towards many of our public institutions, in particular, the national broadcaster.

The speech just given by the member for Mayo probably very succinctly outlines the fundamental differences between the view we have on this side that the public broadcaster is an independent media source for providing free and accurate information to the Australian community and for contributing significantly to the development of arts and entertainment in this country by being able to provide more cutting-edge, challenging cultural views and perspectives through television and radio as opposed to the view that was very clearly pronounced by the member for Mayo that the public broadcaster is some sort of benign institution that has been part of the fabric dating back some 78 years, and that the board is one of those suites of opportunities that provide the spoils of office where it is okay to be biased as long as the bias is balanced and that it goes with government that it is accepted and is okay.

Instead the government have a very different view and that is why this piece of legislation is one of the most important pieces of legislation that we have debated in the last couple of days. I do not say that lightly, having contributed to the debate on climate change and to the debate on private health insurance, with both issues being prominently in the media at the moment. This legislation is essential because it restores independence to the board of the public broadcaster. It allows an independent process to produce board members who not only are independent of government and of media barons and private ownership but who are actually selected based on merit and who will provide a broad range of expertise, skills and experience that will bring the ABC into the media world that we live in now which is very, very different.

We cannot ignore or dismiss that the way we gain access to information has changed. The digital era, more significantly the online era, has created a whole new world in which we get information. No longer is it controlled by editors, or media barons or those that own the presses. With the internet the information is now everywhere. Anyone can produce a video, anyone can create a website, anybody can start blogging. It is important that we as a government acknowledge that our public broadcaster, which is such an essential part of communications in this country, is aware and understands the challenge that whole new regime produces for us. It must have the skills and expertise to take important information that the ABC wants to deliver to the community into that online environment in a modern and effective way. This is not just about saying that you want to do this because you did not like the people who were put on the ABC board. I think that is a fairly futile and frivolous argument and does not address the core principles on which this legislation is based.

It is also very important that we acknowledge the process that the minister has put in place for this legislation and that there are quite significant changes. We will have a merit based selection process. An independent panel will interview and make assessments about individual nominations based on merit. It also means that anybody can nominate to be on the ABC board. Taxpayers who fund this very important institution will now have an opportunity to be a significant part of it. If they, like anyone else, have the skills and expertise that are required to make the board work then, of course, they will have an opportunity to be a part of it. It means that no longer does the minister via the Governor-General appoint who they want. If the minister does not like the recommendations put by the independent panel then they have to justify that to the parliament. That is a significant change.

I think it is important that we realise the significance of this legislation and I think it is important that we realise the role that the ABC has played throughout Australian history. I think we should acknowledge the role it has played in contributing to our identity as Australians, the cultural gains that have been made and the careers that have been launched by the public broadcaster.

But, as I said, most importantly in this day and age, in the way that information is changing and the way that it is gathered and disseminated, it is so important that we have an independent communications broadcaster that is there to provide accurate, objective and independent information in an era when we are bombarded. We are bombarded with opinion. We are bombarded with a whole range of views and perspectives. We are bombarded with instantaneous news that changes every five minutes. In that sense, what we need is our good old ‘Aunty’ to be there to provide that level of independence, accuracy and expertise in communications that we have always relied on.

Of course, that begins with the board. We cannot have an independent broadcaster or an effective communications medium that does not have a board that is driving the changes that are needed to meet those challenges and is providing leadership, direction, expertise and skills that will see the ABC move into the future—into this new digital and online age.

I want to address a little bit some of the comments that were made by the opposition and the member for Mayo—in particular this almost paranoid fear of the reinstatement of a staff-elected director and this view that putting in someone who actually works in an organisation as one of the people who will make decisions about the future management and direction of that organisation can only be purely some sort of ideological slap on the back to your political mates. I find it astounding that people who would pretend to be an alternative government do not acknowledge that workers in an organisation have as much legitimate knowledge and expertise and as much intellectual prowess to contribute to how you make that organisation work better as someone who was appointed from outside or, more importantly, someone who was appointed by a minister. Someone who may well have been a political operator or a minister in the past somehow is a more legitimate member of the ABC board than someone who has actually worked for that organisation.

I do not think that anybody should be frightened by a board that has there a person who was elected by the staff. They must conform to the rules for directors like any other director of that board. They are not there to represent the staff. It is not about an industrial position; it is actually about acknowledging that the people who work in the ABC have an enormous amount to contribute and that there would be somebody from that vast number of people employed across the country who would be well able to contribute many good ideas and much significant understanding. They could contribute greatly as to how the board can operate and therefore how the ABC can operate better.

I am really a little bit confused as to how that can be seen as such a problem. I know the member for Mayo is terrified of unions, I know that he wants Work Choices back and I know that that is because he does not value the role of workers in this country and sees them just as hands, as has been said by other members of his party. On this side of the parliament we actually value the contribution of people who work in this country. We do not just value what they do to produce goods; we actually value the skills and expertise that they gain. I cannot think of a better institution to have the contribution of staff on its board. As I said, I am quite surprised by their level of opposition to this.

I am also surprised by the fact that they have some concern about ex-politicians and ex-senior political staff not being able to be on this board. As I said, it sounds to me more as if they see the ABC as a nice old institution where you can give a few mates the spoils of office rather than seeing it as a vital part of not just the democratic institutions of this country but the cultural and artistic identity of this country. It is actually an organisation that plays a very, very significant role, and as a result you want the best people on the board.

There are many ways in which ex-politicians and people involved in the political process in the past can be involved in public policy in this country. There are many boards; there are many organisations; there are many ways. All of us know of people who have made very successful contributions to public life and public policy in this country after they have moved out of the parliament. It does not seem to me that the ABC board therefore has to be one of those places where you can put people. It does not seem to me that we are losing the skills and experience of people who move out of this place just because we have decided that there is one institution that we will not put them in.

I think it is a fairly spurious argument to oppose a significant piece of legislation that will contribute wonderful advances to the culture and communications industry in this country to simply say, ‘We’re not supporting it because you won’t be able to put ex-politicians on it.’ Again, I think it is a frivolous attitude to the ABC. I think it is a shame that they have that frivolous attitude, because the ABC, as I said, is a key part of the fourth estate. It is the independent public broadcaster. It maintains free content. It is not subject to profits. It is not subject to biases from advertising or other sponsors. It is truly an independent communications body that we have all relied on all our lives to give us accurate, up-to-date and objective information.

I would really just like to reinforce my support for this legislation and to commend the minister. As I said, I do not think that bills like this get the prominence that they deserve, because I guess it is not attractive enough for the media to pick up on the reforms that are contained in this legislation. Nevertheless, for the democratic processes and cultural advancement of this country and for us as a community to embrace the opportunities of the online environment in a way that provides people with an alternative, independent and objective source of information, it is a fundamental change in the way that we are constructing our broadcaster and it will contribute greatly to the future of this country and its prosperity.

In closing, I would like to refer that wonderful organisation who put in a submission to the inquiry that was conducted in 2006, the Friends of the ABC. I know that, whilst they may operate in the background many a time, when they want to get motivated they can. They have made a very important contribution to maintaining the integrity of the ABC over so many years. In response to the opposition in 2006, when the structure was being changed, they said:

The existence of a democratically elected staff member on the ABC Board contributes to good governance. The present system by which government appointments are made to the Board runs counter to good governance - both in the appointment process and its outcome. It does not ensure that across the Board there exists the range of skills, interests and perspectives needed to govern a national public broadcaster. It has resulted in a number of appointees who fulfil neither the criteria of merit nor independence, let alone both.

The method and outcome of Government appointments to the ABC Board are resulting in a lack of public confidence in the competence, integrity and independence of the ABC Board. As the politicisation of an important public body occurs, public trust in our institutions generally declines. Respect for the politicians who make the appointments, people perceived to be political appointees, and the institutions which they direct is eroded. If not addressed, this practice could ultimately threaten the public’s belief in the legitimacy of government.

I think that sums up my argument better than I did, and I hope that the opposition will reconsider their position.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to address the National Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. This legislation will allow for a chairperson to be elected based on merit to the boards of the ABC and the SBS. This will occur through an independent panel which will make its recommendations based on a list of key criteria and recommend candidates to the Prime Minister or minister. These criteria include financial and technical expertise, experience in the provision of broadcasting services, and cultural interests. Criteria which set out the need for technical expertise are particularly relevant in the current environment, as both the ABC and SBS work to roll out digital television services. Currently, more than 96 per cent of Australia’s population can access the analog signals of both the ABC and SBS. Unfortunately, however, as full digital transmission is still a work in progress, many of these same people cannot access clear, reliable digital television.

Currently many thousands of constituents in Paterson have either purchased a television with full digital capability or have otherwise bought a set top box. Unfortunately, the reception they receive through these technologies is often fuzzy, substandard or even nonexistent. Therefore, what we need is a focus on the technical ability: people who understand the intricacies of digital technology and can ensure it to be of a high standard and widely accessible. Audiences and families across Australia should all have access to television regardless of whether they live in the city or the country, on a hill or in a valley.

I am aware that the ABC has started to broadcast a high definition digital service as well as a second digital channel on ABC2 and a third, ABC3. Similarly, SBS provides standard definition and high definition services as well as SBS2. All of these channels are already being broadcast. However, they are not accessible to some in my electorate, because they cannot receive either a digital signal or clear digital signals. Since the ABC and SBS are largely funded through federal government, this means a portion of the Australian audience is missing out on the services provided and paid for with their taxpayer dollars. So clearly the Rudd Labor government needs to focus on the technical aspects of digital transmission so that all taxpayers can access all channels. This should include regional channels, such as Prime, 7TWO, Ten, ONE HD, GO! and NBN.

As I clearly stated, it is my belief that all people should have access to uninterrupted television. In this country free-to-air TV is used not only for entertainment purposes but also to give people vital information such as bushfire and storm warnings and to keep them up to date with local and national news and events. In my electorate of Paterson there are a number of community owned television transmission towers. These include the one at Gan Gan in Port Stephens, which is a digital transmitter. There are transmitters at Forster, Smiths Lake, Blueys Beach, Elizabeth Beach, Booral and Stroud, and these are analog transmitters. With this in mind it is particularly concerning that the Rudd Labor government has decided to switch off the analog signal. In Paterson this is due to happen between 1 July and 31 December 2012. Currently those of my constituents who cannot access clear digital transmission can switch back to analog. However, within the next three years there will no longer be an option, and I am extremely concerned that many could be left with blank screens.

My constituents deserve a guarantee from the Prime Minister and Minister Conroy that digital TV will be ready by 2012—ready to deliver clear and uninterrupted transmission to every household in Paterson. For this to be achieved the government needs to invest in technology upgrades across my electorate. As federal member for Paterson I fought hard and delivered digital upgrades at Gan Gan when the technology became available. Unfortunately, since the change of leadership the Rudd Labor government has not pushed ahead with such upgrades, and most towers across Paterson remain analog.

What the Prime Minister and his ministers have invested in is spin. For the past few weeks it has seemed that every time I have sat down in front of a television or turned through the pages of a newspaper I have been confronted with taxpayer funded advertisements telling me ‘It’s time to get ready’ for digital. I can do this by going out and spending hundreds, often thousands, of dollars on a new television or by purchasing a set top box. Yet when I get home I am without clear digital reception. Instead of wasting money on advertising asking people to get ready for a network which is not ready, the government should be investing in the technology upgrades.

Unfortunately, it has become evident that two things that the Prime Minister is very good at are talking the talk and spending money. For example, the Prime Minister proudly promoted the GROCERYchoice website and Fuelwatch, both of which cost millions of dollars, with promises of cheaper food and petrol. However, these were both monumental failures, and we had to watch food and petrol prices rise rather than decline. To avoid making the same mistake this time round the Prime Minister needs to follow through on his promise and make real, practical, lasting changes to improve television reception.

There are a number of trouble spots across Paterson that need to be addressed urgently. I have received hundreds of complaints via mail, phone and internet, as well as two separate petitions with hundreds of signatures, calling for actions to improve digital television. I have also heard many dozens more complaining during my travels around the electorate, because it is an issue which inevitably arises during most conversations. Those areas affected include Dungog, a large portion of Port Stephens and the Great Lakes region. Residents in these areas often receive fuzzy transmission or cannot get any signal at all. Hot sunny days seem to be the worst. Allow me to illustrate some of these problems by reading a selection of the letters I have received on this issue. Maria from Lemon Tree Passage in Port Stephens wrote to me, saying:

I would like to endorse any action you are able to take to have digital TV reception rectified. In Lemon Tree Passage over the past 3 nights I have not been able to pick up ANY of the TV stations, and on some of the new entertainment systems, analogue is not an option. It is unacceptable that we are encouraged to adopt the technology which is clearly not proven - at least not outside the capital cities.

Another letter, this time from Warren and Jan, reads:

We have all the latest technology but experience significant variation in the quality of our digital television reception much the same as reported in the news report tonight.

We would appreciate any assistance you can bring to upgrade the transmission to allow us to enjoy the wide variety of programs available.

Ron of Soldiers Point wrote to the Newcastle Herald, as published on 27 January:

The reported statistics on digital audiences don’t reflect my preferences, because I rarely receive the signals ABC, Nine and SBS, and the new channels just disappear on a regular basis. Prime and Ten are mostly available.

What’s the matter with our digital engineers? Why can’t they fix the transmissions? Who can explain why digital signals are interrupted when the sun is strong, but mostly OK when it’s raining and overcast?

And when analogue closes down, who do I sue for loss of amenity? The retailer who sold me the fancy big-screen TV that does everything except receive signals, or the stations that can’t provide the transmissions?

As these examples show, the quality of digital television across many parts of Paterson can only be described as poor. This is not only because of reception but also because many local residents cannot receive the same digital channels as those in the city. To address this issue, I wrote on behalf of my constituents to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator the Hon. Stephen Conroy. His reply was vague at best. Minister Conroy assured me a new satellite service will be available to viewers who live in digital television black spots ‘well before’ the licence areas in which they reside switch over to digital-only television. Despite this assurance, Minister Conroy has failed to detail when and at what cost services in Paterson will be upgraded. He has also failed to describe which channels will be provided to my constituents under the Rudd Labor government’s plan and whether or not this selection will be downgraded under digital. This is far from the solid guarantee that residents deserve.

In some areas of my electorate of Paterson there are no nearby digital transmitters whatsoever, and this has placed digital television totally out of reach for constituents such as Phil, who is from the Great Lakes area. Allow me to read the email that he sent to me:

Twelve months ago I moved to Smiths Lake from Ulladulla on the South Coast.

Ulladulla is a smaller township than Forster and roughly the same distance from Wollongong as Newcastle is to me now.

I purchased a $3000 full HD digital TV while in Ulladulla and I received digital TV reception without any difficulty 99% of the time.

In Smiths Lake where I am now I get no digital reception at all.

I do not pretend to be an expert on TV, but I have listened to enough complaints from constituents to know that there are real problems with digital television transmission in Paterson, and it is my job as an elected member to make sure it is known here in the parliament. It is my job to fight for the needs of my constituents, and that is what I am doing here today—applying the pressure to the Rudd Labor government, which needs to put the focus on expert ability rather than spin and deliver these vital technologies.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority also needs to play a key part in this digital rollout. According to its website, ACMA is responsible for the regulation of broadcasting and aims to foster an environment in which electronic media respect community standards and respond to the needs of our audiences. It also wants to be a forward-looking and efficient organisation which supports and encourages a vibrant communications sector. Surely, then, television reception which is high quality and far reaching should be a key goal for this organisation and, ultimately, the government which is responsible for it. So I call on the minister to commit to this issue and take tangible actions to improve the signals in my electorate.

Already, many of those residents experiencing problems with the television reception across Paterson have called ACMA to register a complaint. In reply, they have been sent a survey form to complete and send back. Then they have to repeat all the complaints they have already explained over the phone without any guarantee of further action. Their second option is to dig deep into their own pockets and pay hundreds of dollars for a technician to come out and inspect their homes for individual problems which may be preventing them from receiving a clear signal. This is yet another strain for families who are already struggling with rising costs and interest rates. I can understand why this individual application process works in isolated cases, but if ACMA is taking dozens, if not hundreds, of phone calls, surveys and letters from the same area then the government has a responsibility to act to address the problem.

This government has a responsibility to deliver to the residents of my electorate the services it is promoting through advertising. It has a responsibility to spend the money necessary to provide clear digital reception, especially since it is asking families to spend money on new TVs and set top boxes. Lack of action from the government on this issue has been continually highlighted at my office. Recently, it was also highlighted in the Newcastle Herald newspaper, which reported on 28 January this year:

GROWING problems with digital television reception in Port Stephens have been blamed on errant signals from the Illawarra “knocking out” a major signal station on Gan Gan.

I note this ‘major signal station’ is the same one I secured more than half a million dollars in digital upgrades for in 2004 and which the Rudd Labor government has failed to keep up. I fought hard for these services, and it is extremely disappointing to watch them dwindle under the current minister. The article goes on to explain:

Businesswoman Marian Sampson, one of the many people to complain about the problem, said it seemed to be weather-related but there was no rhyme or reason to the failures.

“It stops so often and for so long sometimes that it’s impossible to watch,” Mrs Sampson said.

NBN digital services manager Steve Brown said that in some weather conditions digital signals from Wollongong were reaching the Gan Gan translator station, causing it to stop transmitting.

He said strong signals from Newcastle created similar problems in Wollongong, and the various authorities were trying to find a solution.

“We have told the Australian Communications and Media Authority about it but nothing much seems to have happened,” Mr Brown said.

Here we see a broadcasting professional noting that the Rudd Labor government seems to have done little to address the reception problems across Paterson. Sadly, I have found the same to be true in my experience. The Hunter is certainly not a remote area; it is one of Australia’s largest regional centres and Paterson alone is home to approximately 90,000 people. It seems even more ridiculous, then, that television services should be so abysmal. If the Prime Minister and his ministers cannot deliver clear reception to such a central region less than 200 kilometres from Sydney, I wonder how they can possibly hope to do so in a country with more isolated communities.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Paterson has had a fairly good go on a wide ranging issue that has what I would think fairly little related to the bill in front of me. I would like him to come to the bill in front of us.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With all due respect, Madam Deputy Speaker, when I started speaking, I talked about the need for the director to have technical abilities as outlined in the bill to understand the new and emerging technologies such as digital transmission, and it is the lack of ABC transmission and SBS transmission under digital in the areas which I am referring to. So I will continue.

One particular reason areas in Paterson, in particular Port Stephens and the Great Lakes, are such large centres is tourism. Beautifully situated on the coast, these regions rely on tourists to help make businesses of all sizes a success. This in turn has created employment opportunities which support a great majority of my constituents and provide the means for them to raise healthy families. As I have already mentioned, Port Stephens is just a couple of hours drive from Sydney, so a large portion of this tourist market is directed towards city residents who are keen to escape for a break that is not too far from home. Imagine their surprise when these city residents arrive at their destination only to discover they cannot keep up to date with what is happening by watching the news and they cannot relax and enjoy the seasonal finals of the tennis or cricket. These same people are normally accustomed to watching not only the major free-to-air channels but also the supplementary digital services such as ABC2 and ABC3 which are now available.

The areas along the Hunter coast offer everything from beautiful beaches and fantastic surf and fishing to some of the best food and wine to be found anywhere in the world. The cherry on top of this award-winning pie surely, then, should be fantastic technological access—clear, uninterrupted, wide-ranging television services which are available to tourists and residents alike. This government owes it to tourism operators who support jobs, support our way of life and bring millions of dollars into our economy each year.

What this really boils down to is the basic responsibility the government has to provide television access, including local information and entertainment. It was not enough for the Prime Minister to promise an upgraded digital network. No, instead he announced a revolution in television—the shutdown of the analog transmission many of my constituents rely on. It is now time for the Prime Minister to put his words into action and make the digital network truly ready as he continually asks my constituents to do through advertising.

I have made this as easy as possible for the Prime Minister and Minister Conroy. Since complaints have started to filter into my office, I have kept track of where each complaint is from and I have identified a number of specific black spots. I am only too happy to provide this list to the minister so that the rollout of new technology can be as swift and accurate as possible. I would also be more than willing to meet with the minister to explain the particular issues in my electorate. My only concern is ensuring local constituents get the television reception they deserve and they pay for. It certainly does not seem like too much to ask for a major regional centre.

It is now up to the government to take action on behalf of Australian residents, and on behalf of all those people who live and work in Paterson. Action, though, is not the Prime Minister’s strong point. This has been demonstrated a number of times, such as when our proud Prime Minister wasted $800 million on a blow-out of the digital education revolution—with a promise to deliver a laptop to every senior high school student. The majority are still waiting. I sincerely and desperately hope I will not be saying the same thing about digital television services.

In the latest fact sheet I received from the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, the minister promises that for most people the switch from analog to digital TV will be relatively straightforward and will deliver a number of benefits. So far, the switch has been anything but straightforward, and I fear it could leave many people actually worse off than they currently are. In this case, I wait eagerly to be proven wrong.

In summary, with any appointment to the board of the ABC or SBS, there needs to be a broad mix of people. There need to be people who understand the technological challenges not just of Sydney or Melbourne but also of the people who rely so heavily on these services, and those are the people in rural and regional communities. I have been very concerned with the way this bill has been put forward, and look forward to the amendments to be put forward by the shadow minister.

John Murphy (Lowe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this evening to speak in support of the National Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. Since I was elected to this place in 1998 I have spoken many times about the important role the media plays in our democracy. I have also spoken many times about the important role the ABC and SBS play in Australia’s democracy.

For nine years—from 1998 to 2007—I watched from opposition as the Howard government repeatedly attacked the heart of our democracy through a series of concerted and disgraceful measures that were simply designed to undermine the strength of our national broadcasters, the ABC and SBS, and at the same time sell out our precious democracy and hand more power and influence to the media moguls. At the last federal election, the Labor Party promised to redress this damage. For example, we promised to implement legislation to create a process of appointing non-executive directors to the ABC board on the basis of merit rather than political allegiance. We also promised to strengthen the ABC board by reinstating the position of a staff-elected director, a position that was cruelly cut by the Howard government in 2006. By amending the Australian Broadcasting Act 1983 and the SBS Broadcasting Act 1991, this bill ensures that we are meeting the promises that we took to the people of Australia at the last federal election.

One can never understate the role played by the media in democracies such as Australia, particularly when commercial media ownership is so concentrated in our country. Commercial media companies have a serious responsibility to act in the national interest by providing balanced and fair reporting rather than simply creating sensational news for the purpose of maintaining an audience and ensuring that advertising revenues continue to flow to those companies. We have seen on far too many occasions that media moguls will prioritise a strong balance sheet over a strong democracy.

That is why independent, national broadcasters are so vital to the health of Australia’s democracy. It is their duty to ensure that Australians are well informed and able to access balanced reporting. Governments have a duty to ensure that the national broadcaster meets this obligation. We need to ensure that public broadcasters, such as the ABC and SBS, are led by suitably qualified, independent and experienced individuals. The best way to ensure that this happens is to develop a selection process underpinned by the principle of merit.

Typically, the Howard government showed a total disregard for this principle. Time and again the Howard government stacked the ABC and SBS boards with its political mates. The former government appointed people who had little broadcasting experience but were very well qualified in supporting John Howard and the Liberal Party. I think it is important to consider some of the appointments made by the Howard government to the boards of the ABC and SBS. One of the first decisions taken by the Howard government was to appoint Mr Howard’s very close friend Mr Donald McDonald as chairman of the ABC. In 1998, well-known Victorian Liberal Party stalwart, Mr Michael Kroger, was appointed by the former government to the ABC board. It seemed to me that, in order to be appointed to the ABC board by the Howard government you needed to be a very close friend of Mr Howard or the former Treasurer, Mr Peter Costello.

From 2003 to 2006, the independence of the ABC was further undermined when the Howard government appointed a number of conservative supporters to the board—namely, Ms Janet Albrechtsen, Mr Ron Brunton and Mr Keith Windschuttle. In 2007, Mr Morris Newman, another very close friend of Mr John Howard, was appointed to the board. SBS was also a victim of the former government’s political interference. The former Prime Minister’s speech writer, Mr Christopher Pearson, was appointed to the SBS board as a non-executive director. I ask: how was appointing openly partisan individuals to the boards of the ABC and SBS providing the independence required of our national broadcasters? How was that good for our democracy?

This bill puts an end to this disgraceful practice employed by the Howard government when it came to ABC and SBS board appointments. The legislation ensures that all non-executive director vacancies on the ABC and SBS boards will be advertised, which means that all Australians have the opportunity to apply. Significantly, an independent nomination panel will proceed to shortlist suitable candidates, ensuring that applicants are subject to proper scrutiny. I very much doubt that this independent panel will make the same partisan appointments as those made by the Howard government. In other words, had a process of merit selection existed during the life of the Howard government, Liberal sympathisers would not have been on the ABC board. The ABC and SBS would not have been subjected to the unprecedented level of political interference that took place during the Howard years.

In stark contrast to the Howard government, the first series of ABC and SBS appointments made by the Rudd government highlight the strength of a merit selection process. The Rudd government appointed two individuals to the ABC board and two individuals to the SBS board from a short list of several names selected by an independent panel after more than 300 people applied. Dr Julianne Schultz and Mr Michael Lynch were appointed to the ABC board. Dr Schultz was a senior executive in charge of strategy at the ABC, whilst Mr Lynch is a former head of the Australia Council and was chief executive of the Opera House. These people are outstanding appointments to the ABC board and reflect the importance of a merit selection process for board appointments. As Senator Conroy, the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, said at the time:

Dr Schultz has made a valuable contribution to the conversation about Australia’s future.

and—

Mr Lynch’s experience in arts administration … will be invaluable to the ABC …

The Rudd government also appointed Ms Elleni Bereded-Samuel, a former presenter on Ethiopian TV and chair of the SBS Community Advisory Committee, and Mr Joseph Skrzynski, a Sydney Film School’s board member, to the SBS board for five-year terms. Again, these appointees are highly qualified for their positions on the SBS board.

Some could argue that these outstanding appointments mean that there is no need to legislate a process of merit selection because the Rudd government will follow this process anyway. However, should the coalition one day form government, this legislation will help prevent a repeat of the dark clouds which gathered over our democracy during the life of the Howard government. This legislation seeks to secure the independence of the ABC and SBS and protect them from political interference by any future coalition government. Moreover, this legislation will help protect the strength of our democracy from future Liberal Party attacks.

I now wish to turn my attention to the second element of this legislation—the reinstatement of the staff-elected director to the ABC board. The position of staff-elected director makes a very important contribution to the ABC’s independence by its unique insight into ABC operations. Indeed, the staff-elected director is in a very good position, if not the best position, to critically examine the advice coming to the board from the ABC’s executive, because of that person’s considerable knowledge of the broadcaster’s operations. When Quentin Dempster occupied that position, he carried out his duties with distinction and always in the public interest.

The Howard government, in a disgraceful act of democratic vandalism, abolished this position in 2006. This decision merely served to further undermine the independence of the ABC, as it removed an influential and often dissenting voice from the board. There can be no doubt that the staff-elected director, who was the only board member with the expertise to cross-examine advice coming from the ABC executive, was a colossal thorn in the side of the Howard government. In the face of budget cuts and constant moves to commercially exploit the ABC, the staff-elected director acted as an important safeguard. The loyalty of the staff-elected director was not to any political party or political ideology but to the staff of the ABC and the ABC’s audience.

The Howard government justified its decision to abolish this position by arguing that the staff-elected director would act in the interests of ABC staff rather than in the interests of the ABC. In making its decision, the former government referred to a review of the corporate governance of statutory authorities and officeholders conducted by Mr John Uhrig, AC. I note that many members of the opposition have also referred to this review in this debate. The Uhrig review stated, inter alia:

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 …

An inquiry into the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment Bill 2006 by the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee proved this to be anything but the case. The Senate committee heard numerous examples of where a staff-elected director opposed measures that may have benefited staff in order to maintain the independence and integrity of the ABC. This is perhaps best seen with a staff-elected director’s exposure of the backdoor sponsorship of infotainment programs on ABC TV in the 1990s, in breach of the ABC act. This is further supported by the last elected director, whom I have referred to, Quentin Dempster, who said on that occasion, ‘The staff director is not the shop steward for the unions’. Well done, Quentin. In other words, the staff-elected director will serve the interests of the ABC, free from political and other forms of interference. This can only be a good thing for the independence of the ABC and this can only be good for our democracy.

The measures contained in this legislation before us tonight will strengthen the quality not only of the broadcasting by the ABC and SBS but also of our democracy. The merits selection process will ensure board members are appropriately qualified, whilst the reinstatement of the staff-elected director to the ABC board will add further knowledge and broadcasting expertise. The Howard government made no attempt to appoint board members on the basis of merit. Rather than appoint individuals with an appropriate mix of skills for running a national broadcaster, the Liberals appointed, as I have mentioned, Peter Costello’s best mate. They also appointed a man who denies the Stolen Generation ever took place and, further, appointed John Howard’s former speechwriter.

We are not the only ones to have expressed concerns regarding the current process of appointing directors. A former Liberal Party chairman of the Senate Select Committee on ABC Management and Operations, Richard Alston, once said:

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.

In opposition, Senator Alston believed the ABC board ‘lacked the skills and experience to provide adequate leadership for the ABC’. Unfortunately, when Senator Alston later became the minister for communications, his decisions only made this situation worse. I am pleased to say tonight that this bill acts on the concerns raised by former Senator Alston.

I cannot understand why the Liberal Party would want to amend this legislation to enable former politicians and staff to be appointed to the ABC and SBS boards following an 18 month cooling-off period. We cannot afford to politicise something as vital to our democracy as our public broadcaster. When politicians, past or present, interfere with the operations of the ABC its independence is undermined and Australia’s democracy is weakened. The importance of this legislation cannot be overstated. This is a bill that strengthens the ABC and SBS by enhancing their independence. In so doing, this bill enhances the strength of our democracy.

It is my hope that the debate about media policy continues throughout the life of this parliament and into the future. It is an important debate. It is a debate not only about traditional media and new media but also about the strength of Australia’s democracy. There is still much that needs to be done to reform our media industry: firstly, to repair the damage done by the Howard government and, secondly, to respond to the challenges and opportunities of the emerging digital and online environment. I applaud the ABC Managing Director, Mark Scott, for his pursuit of a 24-hour television news service. Such a television news service will provide greater diversity of news and information, not to mention competition to the commercial networks. This is good for our democracy and our country.

In concluding, I would like to suggest that we have a debate about extending the role of the public broadcaster to produce newspapers. Australia is mature enough to discuss the prospect of an Australian media environment which includes competitive government-owned newspapers where the journalists decide the editorial line, free from political and corporate influence. Whilst I do not foresee this is becoming a reality in the immediate future, it is surely worthy of debate, particularly in our country where, as I have said so often, commercial media ownership is far too concentrated.

In closing, I would like to quote the News and Views newsletter of the Friends of the ABC. It says:

This bill is the outcome of Friends of the ABC’s efforts over many years.

NOW is a critical time to let politicians know that we expect each and every one of them to demonstrate their respect for the independence of Australia’s foremost cultural institution by supporting the legislation.

I could not put it better. I commend the bill to the House.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can almost feel a version of a Meatloaf song coming on, because, rather than saying two out of three ain’t bad, for the National Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 I will say four out of five ain’t bad in regard to my support for this legislation.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like a bat out of hell.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is right. The first point is about increased transparency of the appointment process. I think and I hope it is a no-brainer for everyone in this place to support getting greater involvement from the diverse community that makes up Australia today. That transparency of the appointment process is a critical part of improving the institutions of both the ABC and the SBS network. Likewise, establishing a new arms-length nomination panel for the new merit based application process is what I would describe as a no-brainer and hopefully it is generally supported by everyone in this place in improving the two institutions in question. Likewise, reinstating the staff-elected director position on the ABC board. I do pick up on what the previous speaker said. I do think previous staff-elected directors have shown a knowledge and an understanding and a respect for directorship, not necessarily playing the role of the shop steward and trying to be the staff union rep in their activity as a staff-elected director on the ABC board. So I think that is a sensible reinstatement and again is one I would consider a no-brainer in building a better ABC for the future.

The fourth point that I would hope is broadly supported is that all of that is done without going too far against the concept of ministerial responsibility and ministerial authority. Again, I hope most people in this place would respect the role of a minister in looking after and protecting the various institutions under their portfolio and the need for that ultimate authority. Therefore the three other changes that I see in this legislation I think are all appreciated and welcomed in improving transparency and accountability and in future-proofing the ABC and SBS boards, but done so without stepping over that line and that principle of ministerial responsibility. They are the four that I certainly think are welcome and important changes attached to this legislation.

The one that I do not support and the one that I can see the merit in the coalition position on is the knocking out of politicians and political staffers from having a role in any future board of either the ABC or the SBS. Personally I do not covet a position and we all speak carefully when we speak about the role that politicians play. But I do think we are a reflection of a representative democracy process and that our 8c a day should buy us no more but no less than any other 8c a day out of any other pocket in Australia. In the role that I play as an independent member of this place, I do not buy the logic that all members of parliament are necessarily tarnished by impacting the independence of these organisations by potentially being involved in these organisations. I would defy that argument to be put on the unaligned members of this chamber in some sort of illogical argument that we may be threatening the independent processes of the ABC and SBS boards. On people being members of political parties, I sympathise heavily with those who have been involved as political staffers not necessarily being knocked out of a role and an involvement in what should be a reflection of the full diversity of Australia, and that should not only involve people who avoid politics but those who are attracted to politics as well. So it is that part of this legislation that I do not agree with.

I can see some sense in the coalition amendment on the 18-month cooling-off period falling in line with executive codes of conduct on ministerial behaviour. I would hope that there is some reflection by the government on that and this is not just an exercise of bashing up each side on whose mates get appointed to various boards and why they may get appointed. If we are being truly reflective of the full Australia through the ability to have a transparent process and a merit based process in the appointment then I would hope that includes all comers and that includes those involved in the political process as well. So, as I say, four out of five ain’t bad for this legislation. I will be looking to see how the amendment is written to see whether it is possible to support half the coalition amendments in regard to the political involvement on the boards while certainly not supporting the position of trying to kill a staff-elected director position. I hope it is not in the same amendment.

Finally, I want to give some general raps for the role the ABC and SBS boards and channels play in society and culture today. On the mid-North Coast of New South Wales the ABC network, particularly the radio network, plays a foundation role in general daily life. It is the social network site that existed before Facebook. It is the emergency site for fires and floods—and we have had four of those over the last 12 months where the ABC mid-North Coast has given basically a 24-hour emergency service with those journalists staying up all through the night to keep people informed and aware of the full emergency and to reassure people through some difficult circumstances that things will be okay. It is also one of the main outlets for news and current affairs within our area. It also engages at a community level, which often is not talked about when looking at the roles that the ABC mid-North Coast office plays. For our Australia Day celebrations the manager of the local station dressed up as Governor Macquarie in the 200th year celebration of the town of Port Macquarie. He gave up his day to play that role, be part of that community event and truly be part of the community. Quite often we hear from people that they want to be part of the community, but I think that example shows that the ABC is serious about that and willing to do it. Likewise, as the previous speaker mentioned, there is a connection with the Friends of the ABC. We have a very active friends network on the mid-North Coast and that has a role all of its own in social gatherings and also in the promotion and protection of the ABC’s product. I hope they are generally pretty pleased about this legislation going through today.

While the mid-North Coast of New South Wales does not have the world’s biggest ethnic community, I have noticed over the last couple of years more and more people engaging in SBS for a number of reasons. The main reason is quality product, such as East West 101 and The Circuit. Such programs are cutting through to become weekly viewing for mainstream Australia. I say hats off to SBS for the way they have done that. I think they probably have not been given the credit for bringing The World Game to Australia over the last decade and really cracking that nut. They should be congratulated for a whole number of different strategies that they have used. They are now delivering a quality product that I think we can all be proud of. This product rivals other channels and networks not only for ethnic Australians but also for mainstream and the broader Australia as well. I think that is pretty exciting for the future of SBS television and radio.

I certainly endorse this legislation. My general feeling is it is a no-brainer. I would love the aspect of knocking out a certain type of Australian from being involved in ABC boards and SBS boards of the future to be reconsidered. I hope there is some sympathy for the coalition amendment, not just an adversarial head bashing for its having come from the coalition benches. I think there is some sense and merit in that amendment. If it is to go through—and, hopefully, with some consideration of the future role that those in the political process might play—then this has been work well done this evening.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to give my strong support to the National Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. I commend the member for Lyne for his contribution. It is always worth while, both in the chamber and on the football field. He said that four out of five ain’t bad. In the hope of making that five out of five, I take him to his suggestion that the government embrace the opposition’s amendment that people such as politicians and the like are ruled out. I think the intent of that piece of legislation is like a sign or symbol in showing how important the impartiality of the ABC is. Even though it might seem like, ‘Why aren’t we treated in the same way as people outside this chamber?’ it is important that we show that the ABC is totally independent—I am not just saying this for the sake of the member for Kennedy, the member for New England or the member for Lyne—and is removed from political influence, because the ABC plays such a pivotal role. It is not just a case of justice being done. Justice must be seen to be being done by totally removing politicians’ influence from the ABC. That is, unfortunately, necessary because of the political interference that occurred over the last few years under the Howard government. I thank the member for Lyne for his contribution because I am confident that this bill will put an end to governments on all sides using the ABC and SBS boards to reward mates and push their own agenda. Hopefully, that will move you to five out of five rather than four out of five.

Like the member for Lyne, I too love my ABC. While I have been known to occasionally venture onto commercial stations, it is only from the ABC that I get totally reliable news. I listen to NewsRadio and to Glen Bartholomew, whom I know from another connection that I will tell you about on another day. The member for Rankin might be interested to know that he was the manager of the band I was in many years ago.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You spotted talent very early on.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He moved on very quickly to bigger and brighter things. It is through the ABC’s coverage of local, national and world events—important events and not just whether Brad and Angelina have broken up—that news is brought to the Australian public. People like Fran Kelly would not know me from Adam, but they are like friends in my house. In Brisbane, people like Spencer Howson, Madonna King, Richard Fidler, Kelly Higgins-Devine and Steve Austin consistently present news in an impartial way. When I worked in the state government and the federal government they shone a light that sometimes I was a bit uncomfortable with, and I was sometimes uncomfortable with the heat that came with that light, but I totally defend their right to do so and the good things that flow for democracy because of what they do.

I have known and trusted the ABC since before I could even say ‘ABC’. Back when I was a kid, I grew up in a country town where there was only one TV station, and that was the ABC. There was only one radio station, and that was the ABC. In fact, we did not even have a TV then. But when we did get a TV, I think in grade 4, I grew up on Sesame Street and Play School. As for so many people, they played a part in my education. Now, with young kids, I have gone back to Sesame Street 40 years later. The word on the street is that Sesame Street is still fantastic. Sesame Street and Play School still deliver great information for young kids. I commend the managing director, Mark Scott, for his innovations throughout the ABC: the 24-hour news initiative, ABC2 and ABC3—especially ABC3. With two young children, Stanley and Leo, ABC3 helps preserve my sanity and probably that of many parents throughout Australia.

Generally speaking, those on the other side love to bash the ABC because they think it is part of a cosmic conspiracy to keep them out of office. That is true of no-one more so than the former member for Higgins, Peter Costello. In August last year he wrote in the Age:

With the ABC the line of questioning is always predictable. It always comes from the Labor/Green perspective.

               …            …            …

I am not now at the mercy of the media so I can afford to say what everyone on the conservative side of politics knows—the ABC is hostile territory.

Former Prime Minister John Howard was also critical of the ABC. He told the University of Melbourne’s Centre for Advanced Journalism last year that the ABC’s reporting of issues relating to climate change and the republic was biased. But it was not just the ABC in the former Prime Minister’s sights. This is what he had to say about the media in general:

… I think it is fair to say that … a fairly clear majority of working journalists do tend to be of a centre-left disposition.

The reality is that all governments of all persuasions—and all oppositions, for that matter—come under the scrutiny of the media and we are all the better for that scrutiny. As a member of the government, as I said, I do not always appreciate the heat, but we are a stronger democracy for the light. The ABC, whether it is television, radio or online, has a long tradition of balanced, insightful reporting on a whole range of issues, but especially politics—it is scrupulously so. They count the minutes, even, especially during election campaigns. They count the comments and they are infuriatingly balanced. I do not just mean that they have a chip on both shoulders, like the member for Dickson. They are properly balanced.

Nevertheless, for 11 years the Liberal Howard government used the ABC as a political plaything, making political appointment after political appointment to the ABC board. The result was a board completely stacked with Liberal stooges. They included Donald McDonald, Howard’s mate, who served as chair from 1996 to 2006; renowned conservative commentator Janet Albrechtsen; Keith Windschuttle, the right-wing historian; Liberal powerbroker Michael Kroger, who was replaced by Liberal Party member and conservative ideologue Dr Ron Brunton; conservative economist Professor Judith Sloan; chairman of the Stock Exchange and close personal friend of John Howard, Maurice Newman; and former Liberal politician Ross McLean. You would agree, Mr Speaker, that this list reads like a Liberal Party who’s who, or a list of Tony Abbott’s Facebook friends. The way the Howard government used the supposedly neutral ABC board to advance their ideologies is an absolute shameful disgrace. Even though they claimed almost every board member, the Liberals continued to conspire against our national broadcaster, claiming bias at every turn.

Contrast this with the way the Rudd government goes about business. In April last year the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Stephen Conroy, made two new appointments to the board. They were South Australian academic and founding editor of the Griffith Review, Julianne Schultz, and the former chief executive of the Sydney Opera House, Michael Lynch. This might be hard for those opposite to understand, but they did not need to produce an ALP membership card to get the job. The Rudd government appointees had to rise to the top of a merit based selection process. They were selected from more than 300 candidates and interviewed by an independent panel. Darce Cassidy, from Friends of the ABC’s South Australian branch, thinks this is the way to go. He said of Minister Conroy’s appointments:

… certainly the Government’s method and the transparency of it makes those appointments much more open to scrutiny than they were in the past.

Look at those scary words: ‘independent panel’, ‘transparency’, ‘open to scrutiny’. They are probably not words those opposite are familiar with, especially when we compare this to the Howard way. The Rudd government does not believe that the ABC board should be stacked with mates and political appointees. Rather, we believe in the greater good. This transcends short-term political expediency. We support an independent approach. We also believe that ABC staff should be represented on the board.

This bill establishes a new, transparent, merit based appointment process for ABC and SBS non-executive directors. To be appointed to the ABC or SBS boards, you no longer need to be a former Liberal politician. You do not need to be a former Liberal staffer or powerbroker. You do not even need to have worked for a conservative think tank or be mates with John Howard—which would rule out Peter Costello, I suppose. I know this is pretty heavy stuff for those opposite to digest, and I honestly do not want to shatter their world view, but under this new process you do not even need to vote Liberal or National to be appointed to the board. In fact, under this bill any Australian will be able to nominate for a position on the ABC or SBS board. The ABC and SBS boards of the future will not be groups set up in an attempt to control some political agenda. Rather, they will be there to empower the independent national broadcasters to develop fresh Aussie content and innovative top shelf news and current affairs, and also to push ahead with new and emerging digital communication technologies.

The process established through this bill will ensure that appointments to the ABC and SBS boards will, as much as possible, be free from political interference. Non-executive director vacancies on the ABC and SBS boards will be advertised. An independent nomination panel will short-list suitable candidates. There will be clear merit based selection criteria for non-executive director positions, and where the government does not appoint a short-listed candidate it will have to provide reasons to the parliament. The Prime Minister must consult with the Leader of the Opposition prior to recommending to the Governor-General the person to be appointed as the ABC chairperson, and the appointment of current or former politicians and senior political staff will be prohibited. The ultimate responsibility for board appointments remains with the minister, and this is totally appropriate. But the process that leads to the appointment must be open, transparent and based on merit to ensure we have quality people driving SBS and our ABC.

As I said, this bill also reinstates a staff-elected director to the ABC board. Because everybody on the conservative side of politics knows that the ABC is hostile towards them, Howard also abolished the staff-elected director position from the ABC board in 2006. You would not want some staff-elected leftie journalist getting in the way of the Liberal Party agenda! We all know that ‘Red Kerry O’Brien’ is planning to raise a people’s army and overthrow the state. And don’t get me started on Comrade Barry Cassidy’s evil schemes! Any right-minded Australia knows that a board without a window into the practical and day-to-day realities of ABC operations will not have the full picture.