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

The Rudd government believes the staff elected director on the ABC board is important to the makeup of the board. That is why we are reinstating this position. I have seen it work in private schools and companies, and it is always good when a board has an employee representative to inform its governance decisions.

The National Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 will put an end to another shameful legacy of the Howard government and introduce a new order, where individuals are selected not because of their political stripes but because of their abilities, their qualifications and their experience. The Rudd government wants people on the ABC and SBS boards because of their knowledge, not because of their political baggage. Unfortunately it is true to say that we do not get to choose our families. Certainly some Christmases I have tried to do that, but we do not get to choose our families. However, we do get to choose what is best for our Aunty. I commend the bill to the House.

09:44:50

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The purpose of the National Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 is to amend the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 and the Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991 to implement a new merit based appointment process for the ABC and the SBS boards. The bill also reinstates the position of staff-elected director of the ABC board. Schedule 1 to the bill establishes a merit based appointment process for ABC and SBS non-executive directors with the following features. The assessment of applicants claims will be undertaken by an independent nomination panel established at arms-length from government. Vacancies will be widely advertised, at a minimum in national and/or state and territory newspapers, and on the website of the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. The assessment of candidates will be made against a core set of selection criteria, supplemented where necessary with additional criteria as determined by the minister. A report containing a short list of recommended candidates will be provided to either the minister or Prime Minister by the nomination panel. Schedule 2 to the bill re-establishes the position of staff-elected director to the ABC board.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to take the opportunity to speak in this debate on the National Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill 2009, a debate that began in the dying days of last year. As the member for Dunkley foreshadowed on 26 November last year and as the former shadow minister for communications, Senator Minchin, outlined last year, we will be moving two amendments later in this debate. Those amendments relate to the staff-elected position for the ABC board and the proposed ban under this legislation of former members of parliament and senior political staff from being eligible for appointment to the ABC board under the merit review process. I will briefly outline the coalition’s objections to both of these issues. To save the House from repetition, given we will be debating amendments on this in an hour or so, I will limit my remarks, particularly since the member for Dunkley, as the previous shadow minister’s representative in this chamber, detailed our objections at the commencement of this debate last year.

The coalition strongly support our national broadcasters. What this bill seeks to do has significant deficiencies. I will deal in reverse order as far as the bill goes with respect to each of the issues. Firstly, I will deal with the proposal to ban for life former members of parliament and senior political staff from being eligible, under the new merit review process, to be considered for appointment to the board of the ABC. We believe this is a very obvious and cheap political stunt by the government. It seeks to give the impression that they are preventing any sense of bias in any respect. I am going to make a number of general points that those opposite know to be right and are beyond dispute, as my friend and colleague the member for Lyne said yesterday.

Firstly, this is ill-conceived and hypocritical. At one level it says that no member of parliament from a state, federal or territory government can ever at any point in their life be eligible for consideration as a future member of the ABC board—not to be appointed by a government minister but to be eligible for consideration, as the member for Lyne said last night. That is a typical cheap stunt that might satisfy those opposite, but let us consider what that means. It means that someone like Bob Carr, the former New South Wales Premier, could not be considered, many years on after a period outside of parliament. Under this legislation, of course, any political apparatchik who has not been a member of parliament or who has not been a senior staffer—say, a former national secretary of the ALP—could be considered for appointment.

Last night the rebuttal to the member for Lyne was that there have been all these political appointments—but those political appointments were not former members of parliament and would be eligible under this bill for consideration. The member for Lyne made the point, and the government speaker following him in seeking to rebut it amplified it: John Bannon, a former South Australian Premier, was on the ABC board. By the time he had finished, both sides of parliament thought he had done a good job. Our side of parliament thought he was a bad premier. As Senator Minchin pointed out, he did a good job. I am pretty sure, if you check the record, that the former Labor government of Paul Keating appointed Ian Macphee. This bill says that there will be a merit process so that people will be considered on merit but, at the same time, it says certain people, former members of parliament and former senior staff—not junior staff; senior staff—are banned for life from even being considered.

We are being reasonable, and we can understand that when you are a member of parliament or a senior staff member you are heavily involved in the political process. But why not after a period of say 18 months at least allow these people to be considered? At least if you care about letting the ABC get the best people, let that merit process consider them. If they find that someone is unsuitable, so be it. What is so hypocritical is that the minister is saying yes, we want a merit based process that is arms-length except that they are going to interfere and ensure that the merit based process does not consider these applicants. The member for Lyne was absolutely right.

The other point we make is that this is completely at odds with the government’s approach on other boards. The Prime Minister has appointed former Liberal ministers. Where someone is capable on merit, they should be considered. How many times have we heard that, and how many times have we seen those opposite nod in agreement? They say the ABC board is different. Are they saying all of those other boards are less important? Are they saying that if someone is inherently after a period of time going to conduct themselves with bias, that does not matter in a diplomatic posting? Is that their point? They know, now, that this is an overreach. It will be ineffective. You could appoint someone from Hawker Britton if the merit review process agreed. In many respects they would, I suggest, have a far more political background than some senior advisers. Think of a communications expert in the minister’s office who 20 years down the track might be able to make a contribution. Indeed, it is lucky this is prospective—the current Managing Director of the ABC once worked as an adviser, many years ago. The minister would not say he is doing a bad job as the manager of the ABC.

We have said there should be a compromise. The government should calmly see the light of day on this and agree that after an 18-month cooling-off period—which is a principle we say that they have established with their ministerial code of conduct; we do not say they are identical, but there are parallels there—we should be consistent and allow these people to be considered. If the merit review process finds them unsuitable, then they are found to be unsuitable.

The aspect of this bill dealing with the reinstatement of the staff-elected position on the ABC board is something this side of the House, this opposition, cannot support. It was this side of the House, when in government, that legislated to remove that position. The reasons have been well articulated in this debate. I accept there is a philosophical difference between this side of the House and the other side of the House, and I accept that whilst the member for Lyne agrees with me on my remarks up until this point, he has a view different from what I am about to say now. For very good reason our side the House when in government took action to remove the staff-elected position. The reason was best articulated back in 2006 in the explanatory memorandum to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment Bill. It stated:

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

More generally and critically, this staff-elected position is at odds with standard practice in Australian corporate governance. We made that position clear at the time and we took action.

We do not believe that the ABC has at all suffered from the absence of a staff-elected director—we really do not. We do not think the community is crying out to us saying, ‘We think the ABC is doing well, but it would just do so much better if we could get the staff-elected director back.’ We do not pick up that sentiment at all. My friend the member for La Trobe has walked in. He would have told me if he had picked up that sentiment—and he agrees that he has not. We will move an amendment to delete that section. As I have said publicly, and as was said in this House last year, I reiterate: we cannot and will not support the bill in either house if that amendment is not successful. I will confine my remarks there, in the knowledge that both of these amendments will be dealt with very shortly and I will no doubt have the opportunity to deal specifically with each of them a bit later this day.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The legislation before us, the National Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill 2009, will amend the Australian Broadcasting Act 1993 and the Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991 to do two things in particular: establish in legislation the new merit based appointment process for ABC and SBS non-executive directors and reinstate the staff-elected director to the ABC board. Both of these aims were committed to by this government in 2007, and this is the honouring of that commitment.

For the sake of clarity and information, under the provisions of the bill, the position of the staff-elected director will be restored to the ABC board. Non-executive director vacancies on the ABC and SBS boards will be advertised nationally and frequently. An independent nomination panel for the purposes of transparency and accountability will short-list suitable candidates. There will be clear, merit based selection criteria for non-executive director positions. Where the government does not appoint a short-listed candidate, it will have to provide reasons to parliament—again reinforcing openness, transparency and accountability.

Under this legislation, 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. The appointment of current or former politicians or senior political staff will be prohibited, in the name of keeping the independence of the ABC and SBS away from political interference. I mentioned before that we committed to these initiatives prior to the 2007 federal election. These commitments were clear, and this is the fulfilment of those commitments, as would be expected by the electorate.

I would like to raise very quickly, if I may, a number of points that lay at the heart of this legislation—first and foremost, the merit based appointments of the non-executive directors. It is absolutely important, as all speakers so far have pointed out, that we have strong and independent national broadcasters. This is absolutely crucial to the fabric of our democracy. Indeed, it is a hallmark of our social communications in this country. Therefore, it is encumbent on the ABC and SBS boards to be able to respond to the challenges and opportunities of the emerging digital and online environment. To this end, both organisations must have transparent and accountable governance processes, and that is at the heart of this legislation.

The ABC and SBS cannot function to their maximum capacity without boards of excellence. This legislation will ensure that all Australians will have an opportunity to nominate for a place on the ABC or SBS boards and all claims will be considered on their merits by an independent panel. In short, all future appointments will be governed by the overriding principle of selection based on merit. Individuals who through their abilities, experience and qualities match the needs of the ABC and SBS will be selected. All future appointments to the ABC and SBS boards will be subject to independent scrutiny by the nomination panel. As mentioned earlier, the process promotes the principles of equal opportunity and gender and geographical diversity. They are, after all, national broadcasters. The ultimate responsibility for appointments, as in all ministerial responsibility positions, remains with the minister.

The second element of this commitment is the staff-elected director position on the ABC board. It is the belief of this government that the reinstatement of a staff-elected director will further enhance the governance arrangements of the ABC board. The position of staff-elected director makes an important enhancement to the ABC’s independence by providing the board with a director who has a unique and important insight into ABC operations. Given their knowledge of the daily operations of the broadcaster, the staff-elected director may often be in the best position to critically examine the advice coming to the board from the ABC’s executive.

However, as with all other director positions, the primary responsibility of this role is to the organisation as a whole. It is not a matter of conflict between two roles at all. The basis of the legislation is to have a transparent and accountable ABC board. That is what it is at the heart of the provisions of this bill.

I would like to take the opportunity to celebrate the importance of the ABC and SBS as the national broadcasters in our culture and our community. An example has been watching the ABC and its activities in recent years as it has continued to adapt to, and change with, the modern media demands of the population and the technologies that are available to us. Take ABC NewsRadio, for example. You can listen live on over 60 frequencies as it reaches into the metropolitan, rural and regional areas of Australia and get up-to-date, professionally provided news. You can go to the ABC NewsRadio’s podcasts of parliament and question time. That gives you the ability to relive the exciting moments that we share together in this House.

We also get ABC NewsRadio Breakfast each weekday. That gives us a great summary of, and commentary on, what is going on in our nation. You can involve yourself in this analysis on the ABC’s online news and opinion site, The Drum, which, by its nature, is drumming up lots of business at the moment. The great thing about this, whether you agree or disagree with it, is that it is a means to engage directly with the affairs of the nation and to have your say. This is the same for Tune and Tweet #qt, which allows one to follow tweets of news headlines and updates, with audio links as well, from ABC Radio.

Those are just some of the services that the ABC, in its expanded role, is providing to the Australian people and the Australian community. We are very grateful for those services. They are a good use of taxpayers’ money and a good return for it.

I would like to finish off my contribution by reinforcing the relevance to telecommunications of the government’s recent announcement about seeking to deal with the provision of digital television Australia-wide. This was reinforced yesterday by the Prime Minister in his answer to a question put by the member for Mallee, who shares with me and with other regional members concern that regional populations should be able to receive not just television signals per se but digital television now and into the future.

What has been announced on 5 January by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, the Hon. Stephen Conroy, is essentially that, for those people who at the moment receive terrestrial analog signals through community based translators, with the rollout of digital television the government is working with commercial operators, where possible and where appropriate, to roll out commercial services to those community based analog translators to convert to digital signals. I understand that the government is negotiating with some 100 of those community translators to try and start, through pilot projects, to roll this digital signal out. I understand that something like 247,000 households will be affected by this.

Where there are people who are unable to receive digital signals through commercial arrangements, the government will be funding a satellite service to provide all of the digital services that are available. The government will do that through (1) the provision of the satellite service itself and (2) the provision of a subsidy to households to enable them to receive the digital signals through the satellite service. The rollout of digital television is going on throughout Australia. We have now mandated the timetable and it is underway.

In my own electorate of Braddon, the geography of which is magnificent and the physical environment of which is fantastic, the topography has never been the most conducive to the transmission of television signals. It is up hill and down dale. If something is not in line of sight, we start to have transmission issues. The template that Minister Conroy has announced is, I believe, the most appropriate template to allow people in my region to be able to receive digital television into the future. The commercial channels, under their obligations, can and will go only so far, so I congratulate the minister on this. I, like many other regional members, will be monitoring this very carefully and seeking to assist our communities to get the digital rollout as soon as possible and as accurately as possible. Part and parcel of that is the reception of ABC and SBS.

That brings me back to this legislation, which I believe will make the boards of these organisations even more transparent, even more accountable and even more professional. We thank all those members who are currently serving on these boards and look forward to this legislation making their processes even more effective in the future.

Brett Raguse (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in support of the National Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. It has been an interesting debate and very emotive, and we can understand why. We have grown up with Aunty—the ABC—and with SBS, also part of our public broadcasting, as our friendly cousins. Many different points of view have been well covered in the debate today. But the reality is that there is a need for this legislation, especially as it relates to appointments to the boards.

SBS and the ABC, as I said, have been part of our culture for many years. We have all grown up with the ABC. At different times of our lives it has interested us in different ways. For us as members of parliament, the quality of news broadcasting and the way that political issues are dealt with is very, very important. So it is an honour for me to be part of the Rudd government as we ensure the ongoing security of the independence of the ABC and SBS.

It is interesting to note that this amendment bill comes about as part of an election commitment. I can understand the opposition’s concerns about a whole range of things—that is what they are here to do, to provide an alternative explanation. But this was part of an election commitment. It was something that we identified a long, long time ago as needing rectification. The 2007 election allowed us to take that mandate forward and present the amendments here today.

Before I go on with some of my own thoughts and considerations, I would like to put on the record what the amendments in this legislation concern. The National Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 makes changes to the Australian Broadcasting Act 1983, the ABC Act; and the Special Broadcasting Service Corporation Act 1991, the SBS Act. At a high level, these changes implement merit based appointment processes for the ABC and SBS boards and reinstate the role of staff-elected director to the ABC board. The merit based appointment process for non-executive directors is proposed to work in the following way. Vacancies are to be advertised in at least national, state and territory newspapers as well as on the internet. Applications are to be assessed by an independent nomination panel. This assessment is to be made against selection criteria, with additional criteria determined by the minister if needed. A short list of recommended candidates is to be prepared and provided by the nomination panel to the minister or the Prime Minister. The minister or Prime Minister will select a candidate from the short list and write to the Governor-General recommending the appointment.

The mandatory criteria for appointment are worth considering. These are:

• experience in connection with the provision of broadcasting services or in communications or management
• expertise in financial or technical matters, and/or
• cultural or other interests relevant to the oversight of a public organisation engaged in the provision of broadcasting services. 

There is a range of people who are not eligible to fill these positions, and this has been well covered by both sides of the House in this debate. Some of the conditions are that:

Current or former members of the Commonwealth Parliament, state and territory parliaments or legislative assemblies, and current or former senior political staff are not eligible for appointment to the ABC or SBS Boards.

It seems this is part of the contentiousness of these amendments. It is probably best to consider what is occurring here. We understand that the ABC and SBS are public broadcasters—owned by the people of this country—and we all, on both sides, understand the need for them to be independent. What we are arguing about with these appointments is the perception that there could be interference.

Viewing the ABC over many years, I have seen some of the political issues that have arisen around the public broadcaster. One of these political issues has been whether board appointments should include staff members or not. The amendments of 2006 removed the role of a staff-elected director of the board. And I well remember, just prior to the 1996 election, when John Howard was in opposition, some of the interviews with Kerry O’Brien. There was certainly a distaste by Howard about the interview style of Kerry O’Brien—to the point that Mr Howard refused to appear. In fact, when he became Prime Minister he refused to do interviews with Kerry O’Brien at all. I am not sure what that meant in the long term, but clearly there was a move later on to say that the independence of the ABC was somehow compromised and that we should appoint members of the board in a certain way. The reality is that it was perceptual. Good political argument in fair media will include all sides of politics when dealing with an issue. When you have both sides of the political fence arguing that there is some bias in the media, to some degree it probably means that the media is right on target.

One of the concerns that is emerging in terms of independence of the media is that journalism—and, as is well known, I have a media background—has moved in the last decade from good journalism to commentary. It is probably something we are all aware of at times. Media operates at two levels: there is the business of delivering the message, but there is also the message itself—and the content is very important. I have huge respect for media, as we all do. It is an important part of our society. That said, as commercial operations, certain media operations can become extreme in their views on both political sides at times, so we all experience at times a view that the media is unfair. That said, the ABC and SBS need to maintain independence. Simply the perception that the ABC or SBS might have some sort of bias could be compromising. Arguments put forward today about whether we should or should not have a staff-appointed member on the board are related to the view that in some way it compromises the quality or the independence of the ABC.

10:22:11I believe that it probably goes more to an ideological perspective. I mentioned the former Prime Minister’s concern about the independence of the ABC and one particular journalist but it certainly goes a little bit further than that. We well understand the issues of waterside workers back in the nineties and the High Court ruling at the time that basically threw out the suggestions of the then Howard government about how the issues of waterside workers and the unions should be reviewed and renewed. That came back very strongly against the workers in this country with Work Choices. Work Choices was ideologically driven. On a business basis you can argue a whole lot of points but this comes back to the rights of individuals within their workplaces.

Back in the eighties the need to increase industrial democracy—democracy in the workplace—was known around the world. All sides of politics essentially understood the need to have more involvement by workers at different levels—whether it is people in management, people who are process workers, people involved in management buyouts or people who are considering a shareholding of an organisation or a business. In my own businesses I have always had staff who have had some financial interest in the business. It makes sense for a whole range of reasons, such as the expertise of the people who understand the business, but it is about industrial democracy. It is about people in the workplace not only having a say but also having a unique understanding and corporate knowledge that goes with their involvement in an organisation or business. To me, the mere fact that there is some opposition to having a staff-appointed member of the board goes totally against the importance of having some local or corporate knowledge involved in decision making.

Many members on the other side talked about members of parliament not being members of the board; clearly it is a matter of perception. It does not suggest for a minute that members of parliament do not have the skills. Yes, ‘merit-based’ suggests that it would be open to all and sundry. The reality is that, as a public broadcaster and an independent news service, if there is any perception of bias that is a problem for the ABC and SBS.

It makes a lot of sense to me that in progressing staff appointments we do not include members of parliament or their staff as nominations for the board. It is not about whether we are capable of doing that particular job or not. Yes, there is a history of former members of parliament serving on boards, particularly on the ABC and SBS boards. This legislation came about because of an election commitment, as there was a perception that there was some political tampering. Whether there was or not, people in the community had that view and as the Labor government came into office we decided that we needed to do something about it—hence, this amendment bill that is here with us today.

This does formalise a certain structure and approach for how appointments are made. As an opposition, and now as a government, we had concerns that there was some adhocery in the way that boards were appointed. I am not suggesting for a minute that there was political bias in that but the adhocery did open it up to that sort of challenge and the perception that some things are not right.

A number of members on the other side talked about our involvement in the ABC and that somehow we are tampering or fiddling with it. Let us judge by actions, not by words. The former government had a particular view that there was some reason to remove staff-appointed members. Quentin Dempster, who was removed during that period of time, was understandably very harsh about that treatment because he no doubt felt that there were some aspersions on him about his activities. He said:

The current ABC board cannot be relied on to advocate the cause of independent public broadcasting. It is in an ideological and party-political bog.

Obviously he was quite angry when he said that, but the reality is that here was a man, who was well-respected in media circles, being aggravated. He was upset about his treatment and about there being some perception that he was doing the wrong thing. To me that clearly shows why we need to keep the ABC and the SBS very independent and make sure there is a perception that all things are correct and equal when we are dealing with these very important public broadcasters.

Aunty and her cousin—the ABC and the SBS—are very much part of our culture and it is important that we are all comfortable in the understanding that their organisation will continue to improve, as it has. Governments of different persuasions have, one way or another, supported these particular organisations as they have continued to grow and as the whole media approach to news broadcasting and other services has grown. The fact that the ABC is looking at a 24-hour news service, in competition with some of the commercial operators, is a good thing for media. It is also a good thing for people who are employed as journalists or other operatives within media organisations to know that they have the ability and the quality continuing on both the commercial and public sides.

The ABC and the SBS have been part of our communities and our upbringing in this country. The ABC pre-dates any of us in this House and when we look at it we see that it is a dynamic organisation, albeit publicly owned and of some major interest to all levels, including—as this debate proves—members of parliament. The fact that we are looking at putting back the way staff appointments are made and excluding certain members of our community—in this case, former members of parliament—is not something that the opposition should get too upset about. It is for all us and we are making the point that it is an independent organisation.

In conclusion, I would like to summarise a number of the points. Australian public broadcasting has been and remains an institution of which we can be all proud. Australian governments, of whatever political flavour, should never use public broadcasting as a means to further their particular political agendas. These reforms ensure that the great ABC and SBS, our Aunty and our cousin, will deliver quality independent media for the future.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, too, rise in support of the National Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. This bill will amend the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 and the Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991 to introduce new board selection processes for the ABC and SBS. The measures in this bill will deliver on the Rudd government’s 2007 election promise to end political interference in appointments to the ABC board. This bill implements a new transparent and democratic board appointment process for both organisations and also restores the staff elected director to the ABC board. Currently, the ABC and SBS board members are appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the government of the day. Whilst the acts specify generic criteria against which candidates are assessed, there is no formal process for appointments and no transparency in relation to how candidates are selected. The new appointment process will involve an independent panel conducting a merit based selection process for non-executive directors to the ABC and SBS boards. The independent panel will then provide advice to the government on suitable appointments.

The guidelines for this new process were released in October 2008. Using this new transparent and independent selection process, in March 2009 four appointments were made: two each to the ABC and SBS from an outstanding field of over 300 applicants. Features of this new process include that the assessment of applicants’ claims will be undertaken by an independent nomination panel established at arm’s length from the government. Vacancies will be widely advertised—at a minimum, in the national press and/or in major state and territory newspapers and on the website of the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. The assessment of candidates will be made against a core set of published selection criteria which may be supplemented by additional criteria where appropriate for specific positions—for example, to address particular skill gaps. The nomination panel will provide a report to the minister with a shortlist of at least three candidates for each vacant position. The minister will select a candidate from the shortlist and will write to the Governor-General recommending the appointment as required under the ABC and SBS acts.

In accordance with the government’s election commitment, the appointment of current or former politicians or senior political staff will be prohibited. I will speak a little bit more about that later on if time permits. Where the vacancy is that of the chair of the ABC board, the selection process would follow all aspects of the merit selection process as it applies to non-executive board appointments—with two exceptions. The Prime Minister would select the preferred candidate in consultation with the minister. The Prime Minister would then confer with cabinet and, once cabinet approval was granted, the Prime Minister would consult with the Leader of the Opposition before making a recommendation to the Governor-General. I believe that that entire process highlights both how transparent and how fair the process will be. It certainly highlights that it will not be a process that is in any way politically biased.

I take a moment to talk about the ABC and SBS and their significant contribution to the Australian community. The ABC was founded in 1929 as the Australian Broadcasting Company and subsequently became a state owned corporation in 1932 as the Australian Broadcasting Commission. The ABC has been at the forefront of media in Australia throughout its history, beginning with radio in 1932, television in 1956, colour television in 1975 and satellite broadcasting during the 1980s. The ABC was one of the first major media organisations to establish a strong new-media presence online in 1995. Today, the ABC operates 60 local radio stations across Australia, 51 of which are in regional Australia; four national radio networks, including NewsRadio, Radio National and the dedicated youth network Triple J; three digital radio networks; and the international service Radio Australia, which broadcasts Australian news and content in eight languages throughout the Asia-Pacific. The ABC currently operates three television channels, with plans recently announced for a fourth channel dedicated to business, politics and news. Online, the ABC is not only one of the most trusted and up-to-date news sites in the country; it has also been a world leader in new ways of delivering media content to viewers through its podcasting and mobile services.

The ABC plays an important role in the production and distribution of Australian content. Much of this content, whether via radio, film, television or online, is not material that would be produced by a commercial media organisation. It is only because the ABC chooses to tell these stories that they are able to be told. The ABC has shown a willingness to take risks and work in areas that other networks are reluctant to work within. We see this in shows such as Landline, for regional and rural Australians; Message Stick, for Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander Australians; and the inspirational Choir of Hard Knocks, about homeless Australians finding purpose through shared music. This risk-taking extends to the ABC’s willingness to work with new and emerging talent: journalists, performers, writers, directors and musicians. Many celebrated Australians, including Ray Martin, George Negus, Garry McDonald and, more recently, Chris Lilley and Missy Higgins, launched their careers because of the ABC. It is through the ABC that many Australians are able to get their start in television, music and media, and many go on to international success. The ABC is in many ways the voice of Australia both locally and internationally and plays an important role in the daily lives of many Australians.

I now turn to the important role SBS plays in Australian life. SBS was founded in 1978, incorporating existing radio stations that broadcast to multicultural communities in their own languages. SBS TV began transmissions in 1979. Today, SBS Radio broadcasts in 68 languages across all Australian states. Importantly, SBS has changed over time, reflecting changes in society. It began its broadcasts in languages such as Italian and Greek and then added new languages such as Vietnamese, Cantonese, Arabic and Somali as these communities arrived in Australia in greater numbers.

The SBS charter provided in the SBS Act sets out the principal functions of SBS and a number of duties it has to fulfil. We can see from the charter the vital role that SBS plays in the lives of approximately three million Australians who speak a language other than English in their homes. The electorate of Makin, which I represent, has many communities of non-English-speaking background and I am very aware of just how important SBS is for migrants new to Australia. To have information and news available in your home language makes settling into a new country so much easier. There has been much said in recent years of Australia and its view of migrants and new arrivals. The fact that we are a country with a government funded multicultural broadcaster that broadcasts in 68 languages shows just what a welcoming country Australia is and our willingness to embrace and celebrate new cultures.

There is a final point I would make in respect of SBS. Like the ABC, SBS has shown a willingness to work with new talent in film and media. The greatest difficulty for young people wanting to work in film and television is getting an opportunity to pitch their ideas—getting that first start. Many of the major networks and studios are essentially closed shops that are only willing to discuss projects with established artists. SBS goes out of its way to be the opposite. It has many specific projects designed to give young filmmakers with no professional experience their first professional broadcast opportunity. Many of these projects are geared towards filmmakers from a diverse range of backgrounds.

The ABC and SBS play unique roles in the Australian cultural and media landscape. I believe both perform roles that could never be filled by a commercial media organisation. It is only through government broadcasters that we are able to broadcast to rural and regional Australia and across the Asia-Pacific, provide opportunities for Australian talent to have their work produced and distributed, allow many Australian communities with unique requirements to access radio, television and online media that suits their needs and continue to provide opportunities for young Australians—regardless of their background—who seek a career in the media, film and television industries and display a willingness to innovate by embracing new technologies and new ways of delivering news and media content to the community.

The ability of the ABC and SBS to impartially and effectively continue their important service is very much dependent on the appointment of a skilled and balanced board. In that regard I am pleased to see that this bill reinstates a staff elected director to the board. That is not a new practice but one that I believe other boards, both public and private, would benefit from. Staff members inevitably know what works, what does not and what improvements could be made, yet their expertise is all too often ignored by management.

The ABC and SBS networks serve an important role in democracy. In a country where our major media outlets are owned by private and public companies there always exists the ability of media owners to act in their own self-interest rather than objectively and impartially. Their influence over public policy can indeed be immense and I have no doubt that we could all cite many known examples of that. In Australia we have laws limiting media ownership—albeit that those laws were substantially watered down by the Howard government. We have those laws to prevent media monopolies which in turn can have an undue influence on the flow of information and news. It is an important underpinning principle of our democracy that we have diversity of ownership of Australian media outlets, so much so that, other than foreign investment laws, media ownership is the only area of private enterprise that I am aware of where limitations of ownership are prescribed in law. The Airports Act places limitations on the ownership of airports by aircraft carriers and the ACCC has powers relating to market competition but our media ownership laws are quite unique. They are quite unique for good reason—that is, because we want to ensure that they are fundamental to underpinning the principles of democracy in this country.

Over the years the ABC and SBS have generally been seen by Australian people as being fair and impartial in presenting issues. It is my assessment that both networks would have a very high level of credibility when presenting political and current affairs. That credibility and impartiality is very important to our democracy. That credibility begins with the boards that manage them.

I want to comment on the two issues that have been raised by the member for Casey when he earlier said that the opposition would be moving amendments to the question of a staff elected person to the board and also the question of whether a person who was a politician or worked in politics would be eligible to be appointed to the board later on. In respect of a staff elected person to the board I said earlier that a staff person has a lot to offer to any board, whether it is the ABC board, the SBS board or any board whatsoever wherever it may be, because there is no question in my mind that staff have an incredible insight into the operations of the organisation that they work within—an insight that would undoubtedly prove to be invaluable to the administration of that particular organisation.

I note that the member for Casey said that it could cause a conflict of interest with respect to that person working or being appointed to the board. I say to the member for Casey that there are many, many other examples where employees are appointed to either government boards or private boards, and there are many examples where in fact it is provided through legislation that employees, through their union, have an elected person on the board. Those people could also be accused of having a conflict of interest. The reality is that they are appointed to the boards because they bring with them a degree of expertise and experience that is useful and beneficial to the organisation, and it would be no less the case with a person who was appointed to the board from among the employees of the ABC.

In respect of the question of whether a person who has been a politician or worked in a political advisory capacity ought to be appointed to the board or not, can I say this: again I support the government’s position on this. I believe they should not. I pointed out earlier in my remarks that the ABC is unique in its structure—so much so that we have legislation limiting media ownership rules in this country, albeit that legislation was watered down by the Howard government. It is such an important principle that we as a nation have accepted that we need legislation to manage and govern media ownership. We do that to ensure the impartiality of media services in this country and the news and reports that they provide. To suggest that a person who has worked in politics in one form or another will change their political views, I believe, is a nonsense. We all know that they will not, or at least that they are very unlikely to. Therefore, in the interests of the nation and given the importance that we place on impartiality in this particular appointment, it is important that that provision be supported.

My view is that this particular bill picks up on a number of critical elements in terms of the whole process about appointing people to the boards—transparent processes which ultimately—

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Danna Vale (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member is entitled to be heard in silence.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

will ensure the best possible board structure for those services. It will be free of politics not only during the life of this government but when other governments are elected in due course. Secondly, it ensures that the board will be free of political interference as well, and that is absolutely crucial and fundamental to the good running of the ABC board. I commend this bill to the House.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in reply—I am very pleased to have the opportunity to sum up on this important legislation before the parliament, and I thank honourable members for their contribution to the debate on the National Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. This bill fulfils two important and longstanding commitments by the Australian Labor Party which will lead to improved governance and enhanced long-term outcomes for our national broadcasters.

The national broadcasters—the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, or ABC, and the Special Broadcasting Service, or SBS—play an important and critical role in Australian life, and it is imperative that they perform their functions in an independent and impartial manner. This bill establishes a statutory merit based and transparent selection process for the appointment of non-executive directors to the ABC and SBS boards. Strong boards appointed through this robust and transparent process are in the best interests of the nation and of the broadcasters themselves.

The process established by this bill will give all Australians an opportunity to nominate for a place on the ABC or SBS board and all claims will be considered on their merit by an independent nomination panel. In addition, the reintroduction of the staff elected director to the ABC board will increase the quality of the advice to the board and deliver positive benefits to the ABC and indirectly to its audience. This is simply common sense. It is well known that the lack of due process has in the past resulted in long-running concerns that the ABC, and to a lesser extent SBS, board appointments have been politically motivated. There is also a perception in the community that perceived political appointments have diminished the level of expertise which is essential if the boards are to do their job of making decisions on the range of complex technological and financial issues facing the national broadcasters.

The ability of the national broadcasters to shape and influence public opinion is significant. It is essential, therefore, to ensure that the boards of the national broadcasters fulfil their statutory charters in a manner that is impartial and independent of the government of the day. To this end, this new statutory appointment process will ensure that appointments to the boards of the national broadcasters are merit based. The government is committed to ensuring the ABC and SBS boards have the best qualified and most experienced members to assist them to navigate the significant challenges they will face amid rapidly accelerating changes in the media landscape. This merit based selection process takes the politics out of the appointment process and puts the focus where it should be: on getting the best candidates for the boards. The legislation is also drafted to ensure that the nomination panel conducts its selection process at arm’s length from the government of the day.

The second change to be implemented by this bill is the reinstatement of a staff elected director on the ABC board. The previous government abolished this position. Its rationale for removing the position was to remove a perceived potential conflict between the statutory duties of the staff elected director to act in good faith and in the best interests of the ABC and the appointment of that director via election by ABC staff. The government does not believe there is any inherent conflict of interest, and we made a commitment in the context of the 2007 election to restore the staff elected director position on the ABC board.

The staff elected director plays an important role in enhancing the ABC’s independence by providing the board with a unique and important insight into ABC operations. The staff elected director will often be the only individual with the expertise to question the advice coming to the board from the ABC’s executive. The staff elected director brings particular expertise to the board but is not elected for the purpose of representing ABC staff. This is comparable to the other directors, who likewise do not represent the communities in which they work.

All ABC directors, including the staff elected director, are obliged to act in the best interests of the corporation as a whole. In the government’s view there is no question about the constituency that any ABC director is accountable to. Their prime responsibility is to the best interests of the ABC. The measures in this bill deliver on the government’s election commitments to introduce a new merit based appointment process for the ABC and SBS boards and to restore the position of staff elected director on the ABC board. The measures will increase the transparency and democratic accountability of both the ABC and the SBS boards, will strengthen our national broadcasters and will assist in ensuring they continue to provide Australians with high-quality broadcasting services free from political interference. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.