Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

What we saw there from Senator Seselja was what I would call the 'one plus one equals four' defence. Basically, we know that there was a meeting between the Prime Minister, the communications minister and the chair of the ABC, and the chair of the ABC left that meeting and then took the action that he did. We have had not one explanation as to why, after the chair left that meeting, he took the course of action that he did. The senator who spoke before me, Senator Seselja, went nowhere near that. We know Senator Cormann has gone nowhere near that.

This is the first opportunity that we've had in this chamber to ask questions about this debacle, because it has taken place since the last sittings. But I also think we need to look at what this proves, which is how out of touch the government is with the Australian community. We see this with the debate around religious freedom. We've seen it with the debate around climate change and the IPCC report. We also see it with the issue of an independent and robust ABC. We know that the Australian people have a high regard for the ABC. We know that is especially so in regional Australia, where they depend on the ABC not only for news and information but also in emergencies. When there are storms or other events that they need to be aware of, it's the ABC that they rely on. We know that Australians rely on it for music—particularly young people, especially those in regional areas—and, obviously, for news. All Australians have a fondness and a regard for the news services the ABC provides throughout Australia.

There are more expectations of a minister for communications than just being the government person responsible for communications. The Australian public see that minister as the custodian of the ABC. But what they know from the actions of Senator Fifield is that he is not the custodian of the ABC, because his record as minister is one that has allowed the constant undermining, the constant cuts, the political interference and the politicising of the board appointment process. Since I was elected, we've also seen the legitimising of attacks on the ABC, particularly from the crossbench—because this minister has been prepared to do deals with the crossbench that undermine the authority of the ABC. When this is your record, it's no wonder that the ABC has ended up where it has. So the government can't wash their hands of this and say, 'Well, that was the board,' and 'That was the managing director.' They are responsible for the culture created and for what clearly became a poisonous relationship between the former chair and the former managing director. That all flourished under this government because of the reasons that I've outlined: years of cuts, years of political interference and years of political pressure.

It's really disappointing that, at the first opportunity that we've had to ask a question of the minister—and I think Senator O'Neill put this really well, saying it was basically intimidation that led to the ABC chair acting the way he did—Senator Fifield refused to tell the Senate what he and the former Prime Minister said to the chair, who has recently resigned, that gave him the clear impression that the ABC's funding support was at risk. We need to know what happened in that meeting that led the chair to take the actions that he did.

When the government said that the secretary of the department would look at this, Labor said at the time that we didn't have confidence that that review would have the ability to get to the bottom of that issue. The fact that that report came out this morning, before the first question time since it happened, would indicate that that is the case. So, whilst I have great respect for Mr Mrdak as the secretary of the department, I don't think that the public have any confidence, and we in the opposition certainly don't have confidence, that that was a thorough review. It shed no light as to why the former chair acted so recklessly following his meeting with the minister and his mate the former Prime Minister.

The obvious answer is that there needs to be a full and open public inquiry so that we can get a full account as to why there was so much dysfunction with the chair and the former managing director at the ABC. The public need to have confidence that the ABC is going to operate effectively into the future. Until these answers have been given, we don't see how they can operate effectively under the current scenario. I think Senator Wong was correct in calling for the minister to stand down, because it is clear from what has happened so far that he is incapable of providing honest answers as to what has gone on in the ABC, and the Australian public deserve so much more.