Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

It is probably worth while going back to what this bill is in fact about before I deal with the Australian Democrats’ amendments. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment Bill 2006 is a short bill, and Labor opposes it because what it does is reduce—and this is the technical way of doing it—the maximum number of directors on the ABC board from nine to eight by abolishing the position of the staff-elected director. That is what we are talking about today with this bill.

The government argues that the staff-elected director is subject to potential conflict—perhaps a conflict of interest or feeling obliged to represent the interests of the people who elected them—rather than acting in the best interests of the ABC itself. That argument has been totally rejected. I think the debate over the last day has demonstrated that. I think Senator Coonan has failed to make the case for why this bill should be supported by this parliament. Labor has not heard any evidence to support the position that has been put by the government in respect of this bill. There is nothing that can be pointed to that demonstrates that any staff-elected director has failed to comply with their duties. When you look at what is really behind the legislation, it is all about undermining the independence of the ABC.

The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Coonan, did announce plans to restructure the ABC board back in March, and it is fair that people expected that a reasonable restructure might be undertaken. This is the result: a very short bill which deals with abolishing the position of a staff-elected director on the ABC board. It is hardly what you would call a realistic approach to a restructure—hardly a true attempt to ensure that the corporate governance arrangements for the ABC mean it remains independent. All this government has done over its period in government is stack the ABC board with its political mates to try to gain control. That is all it seems to have sought to do.

This bill was also subject to a Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee inquiry. That inquiry did not find any evidence that we should depart from the current arrangements. So, if the minister were serious about a proper restructure, it would be a case of taking the bill back to the drawing board and having a proper look at it. But of course the minister is not serious about that at all. The minister does not want a truly independent statutory governing body for the ABC.

Since 2003, Labor has argued that there should be an open and transparent process for making appointments to the ABC board. If the minister was serious about a restructure, she could certainly have a look at that proposal—but no. I do not think we are going to hear that from this government, not on this issue.

Turning to the Democrat amendments, Labor does support the sentiment behind them. As Senator Conroy indicated yesterday in his contribution to the second reading debate, Labor believes that there should be a merit based selection process for appointments to the ABC board. It is a sensible way of appointing people to the board. While the final decision should remain with the minister, the eligibility of candidates would be determined by an independent selection panel. If the minister appointed a person not nominated by the selection panel, a statement to parliament setting out the reasons would be required.

This model is based on the Nolan rules, which govern appointments to the BBC in the United Kingdom. Labor has consistently argued for this policy for the last three years. So it was not a case of the minister not being aware that this was on the table. If there was going to be a true restructure of the ABC board—as the minister, I suspect, tried to promise back in March—then those matters should have been put on the table and argued out to come up with a reasonable model that would in fact deal with the range of issues that have come up in the last couple of years.

Unfortunately, the appointment model suggested by the Democrats does not meet the requirements set out by Labor. So, although we are of a mind to support the sentiment behind the Democrat amendments, we are in a position where we cannot actually support the amendments as proposed by you, Senator Murray, although we do understand that you have brought this idea forward a number of times and have argued quite passionately for it. The idea that there should be clear merit based selection criteria is one that I think we all agree on—except the government. It does not seem that we are going to gain much ground with this government, given its past practices and its actions today—not that that should deter us from continuing to argue the point. Perhaps Labor and the Democrats can still argue the same point from different perspectives, even though we might not agree on the black-letter print. One of the issues I would raise in respect of Senator Murray’s amendments is that they do not appear to be binding on the government as they only require the Governor-General to ‘have regard’ to the principle of a merit based selection process in making appointments.

Labor do not believe that this bill can be fixed on the run. The government should have taken the opportunity during the review process to look at the issues that the Democrats have raised and that we have raised about a merit based selection process and dealt with them then. It has avoided the main issue, which is not surprising for a government that, by the look of it, seeks to continue to ensure that its political mates can be put on the ABC board. Unfortunately, Senator Murray, Labor think that the amendments that you have proposed leave the minister with too much discretion. Given the minister’s form, we do not think they should be supported. In fact, we believe the legislation should be rejected outright.