Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Sport and Recreation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (Senator Coonan) to questions without notice asked by Senators Conroy and Moore today relating to Telstra and to the Australian Broadcasting Association.

I would like to address my comments to Senator Coonan’s answer to Labor’s question about the comments by Senator Fierravanti-Wells in relation to criticism of the ABC. I think it is very pertinent and timely to take note of her answer because of the growing audacity of the Howard government in bullying the ABC into conforming and to seeing the world through its eyes. At least five examples come to mind of very blatant attempts to bully and interfere with the institution of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, not least being the range of board appointments that have occurred. Clearly, friends and favourites of the Liberal Party have been appointed to the board on a consistent basis.

But that is not all. There is much more. The ongoing monitoring of allegations of bias against the government has imposed an extraordinarily onerous regime upon the ABC, which has many news and current affairs journalists living in fear that they are not conforming to this appalling structure of reporting that the minister referred to in her answer. But that is not all. It gets worse. Today we heard the almost amazing example of a Liberal senator criticising a drama production of the ABC before it has even been completed. Just how outrageous are these Liberal senators and this Liberal government in stating publicly that they are concerned about the ABC’s bias when the series has not even been made? For the record, I think it is very important to note that with respect to the drama in question, Bastard Boysa drama series being produced by the ABC on the 1988 waterfront dispute—the minister was asked to confirm that the Maritime Union won the case in the High Court and the federal government incurred more than $700,000 in legal costs. So let us get this clear. The government is afraid of the facts being told.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What did they win? It was an illegal strike.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Sport and Recreation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But that is not actually the point about this drama. I would like to go to comments made by the writer of the series, Sue Smith. She said:

My approach is this is a generation or two of men who haven’t fought a real war and this is the closest many will get to fighting a war.

When you talk to many of the men involved, they cry because it was such an intense experience and tested their mettle so much.

I am quoting from an article in the Weekend Australian. She goes on to say:

In some ways, people probably expect it to be a piece of leftie-something, which is why we went to great pains to be not that.

Let it stand on the record that these allegations are just another attempt by Howard government members to try to bully and intimidate the ABC into conforming to their view of history. But there is more, as I said, such as the recent lies and cover-up relating to the Jonestown book, where the ABC board not only sought to have an employee of the ABC take full responsibility for withdrawing that book from sale but also embarked on a cover-up, as was exposed on Media Watch. The ABC board intervened to stop ABC Enterprises publishing distinguished journalist Chris Masters’s biography on Alan Jones. That culture has really sunk in. Before making a few further comments, let me give one more example. On the Sunday arts program on radio ABC 774 there was criticism of board member Keith Windschuttle, who was censored on air, much to the disgust of those involved.

So those examples—TV, books, audio, board appointments and the monitoring regime—all stack up to a regime of intimidation of the ABC. They come in the context of the Howard government today attempting to dictate what should be taught to our children. I remember very strongly the culture wars when National Museum board appointments David Barnett and Christopher Pearson led the charge to change exhibitions relating to Australian history. And now we have the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, claiming that history teaching was a ‘fragmented stew of themes and issues’.

When you link all these things together, there is clearly a censorial campaign afoot from the Howard government, which has manifested itself in the board interference of many of our cultural institutions. It does constitute a cultural and historical war, with this government trying to reframe and reinterpret through its own ideological prism the history of this country, and that is disgraceful. (Time expired)

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we are debating today in taking note of answers is the forthcoming ABC drama on the waterfront dispute entitled Bastard Boys. They have got the title right to begin with, I suspect. It is a good way to start. We all know which group that title would be referring to—the union. I expect that would go directly to the heart of the union. In fact, I believe the union would wear that sort of title with honour. I do not think they would even object to the title. To that extent, I would suspect the ABC have already got their title right. But what Senator Lundy has not conceded in relation to this forthcoming drama is that the government encourage drama at the ABC. In fact, in our last budget we increased their funding for drama. The ABC would be incapable of making such a series, or one-off drama, without the extra government funding. Senator Lundy failed to give the government credit for that.

I will quote Senator Fierravanti-Wells extensively in a minute, but it is quite understandable for the likes of Senator Fierravanti-Wells, me and anyone in the public to question the ethics of the ABC before the drama is made. Why should we wait until it is made? We are simply sending out signals to an organisation that has form with such dramas to get the facts right. We do not object to such an issue being put down in drama form; in fact, we welcome it. We just want there to be a balanced approach. The producer has assured us that it will be a balanced approach. We want an honest assessment of the past because, if we get an honest assessment of the waterfront dispute, we will see who were the real bastard boys and who was trying to get it right. That is what the real assessment will find. Let us put that down on the record. The ABC cannot shirk the tag of having some form in the past—as recently as the disowning of the Jonestown book. If they are going to be honest, they ought to reflect the government’s role, Patrick’s role and the union’s role as they were. I am informed that the producer, Sue Smith, has gone around and interviewed each person; so she should be able to extract the truth of the matter and it should not be one-sided.

I see that Peter Reith will be playing himself in film footage and that they have actors for Bill Kelty and Jennie George. I want to know who is playing Kim Carr. Kim Carr was seen there more times than any of those players in this dispute. He lived and breathed down at the waterfront during that dispute. There are pictures and old film footage of him. I think he would be happy to play himself. In fact, is he part of this particular drama? There was no-one more disgracefully involved in the waterfront dispute, and he wears it as a badge of honour. He loves the tag anyway. He lived and slept there and linked arms down at the gates of the waterfront. It is an absurdity to say that that dispute—and history will show this—was not found in the courts to be illegal. The strike held out the front of the gates was deemed to be illegal.

Senator Fierravanti-Wells has sent out the signal that all she seeks is balance. She warned the ABC and so do all of us. Why shouldn’t we? We have been given assurances by the producer, Sue Smith, who also has on her CV The Brides of Christ and The Leaving of Liverpool. I did not see The Leaving of Liverpool; I saw extracts of The Brides of Christ. They were not bad shows. I think The Brides of Christ was slightly tilted towards an anti-Catholic position, but I do not think anyone need be precious about it. It was a very popular show. (Time expired)

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the answer of the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, particularly in relation to perceived—and I say perceived—bias of the ABC by members of the Liberal Party. In doing so, I refer specifically to the article published in the Weekend Australian where a Liberal senator complained about the ABC drama work-in-production Bastard Boys. It appears that members of the government are concerned that the drama of the 1998 waterfront dispute, in which the Patrick Corporation took on the Maritime Union of Australia over working conditions, will project a pro-union bias. Senator Fierravanti-Wells is quoted as saying:

This smacks of another example of wasteful spending by the ABC being used to drive an anti-government, pro-Left agenda, conveniently timed to appear during an election year.

Here we have a miniseries based on an event of some historical significance being produced by and to be aired on the ABC. The filming only started in July. I do not think the senator has had special previews or read the script, but I will stand to be corrected on this. Perhaps the senator sees it as a historical drama based on real-life experiences and that what will be shown will not reflect positively on the government. Perhaps the senator has a better understanding of recent history than the minister, who answered ‘no’ today when asked if she could confirm that the Maritime Union won the waterfront case in the High Court and that the government incurred more than $700,000 in legal costs. The minister was asked if she accepted that an accurate history of the waterfront dispute must reflect the fact that the union position was vindicated by the court. Perhaps the minister could improve her knowledge of recent Australian history by watching the miniseries. The ABC website says about the production:

BASTARD BOYS has been written with the cooperation and participation of all parties to the dispute. It is the first time participants such as former Patrick CEO, Chris Corrigan and ACTU Secretary, Greg Combet have agreed to tell their stories.

So here we have government members concerned about our Australian broadcaster producing a miniseries based on a recent historical event, with both sides agreeing to tell their stories. And we have a member of the Liberal government calling it biased, saying it is antigovernment and alleging it is being filmed specifically to highlight the government’s industrial legislation and that it will influence the outcome of the next federal election.

Today we have the Prime Minister opening a history summit and calling for a return to a more disciplined approach to Australian history teaching in schools. In opening the summit, he said:

I want to make it very clear that we—

the government—

are not seeking some kind of official version of Australian history.

It may all sound politically correct. In 1995, the Prime Minister, who was the then Leader of the Opposition, made a statement about the ABC board. He said:

You not only must have a board that is completely politically neutral, but it must be seen to be neutral.

We all know what history will show with regard to this statement. On this report card, the Howard government has failed on both points. Once again we are dealing with a government out of touch with the people of Australia—the people it is supposed to represent. What will it take for this government to realise that the overwhelming majority of Australians do not agree with it about the ABC and the government’s claim of left-wing bias?

The minister has seen the ABC annual report 2004-05 and so would be familiar with the research by Newspoll contained in it. This research revealed that 80 per cent of people believe the ABC provides quality television programming, while 84 per cent regard the ABC to be distinctively Australian and contributing to Australia’s national identity. And, just for the record, 82 per cent of people believe the ABC is balanced and even-handed when reporting news and current affairs. But members of the Liberal government continue to make claims of bias.

So what do they do? They appoint some extreme right-wingers to the board. They remove the staff elected director’s position from the board—the one position on the ABC board that the government could not fill, the government could not influence and the government could not control. Then the board intervenes to stop ABC Enterprises— (Time expired)

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak on the motion before the chamber—that is, to take note of the answer of the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts in question time today. I want to correct a couple of issues that have arisen during this debate so far. Firstly, Minister Coonan is extremely capable in this portfolio. It is unquestionable that the minister is very contemporary, is very up-to-date and has a handle on this portfolio. The criticisms from those on the other side of the chamber are totally irrelevant. It is a bit of padding and a very weak argument. To suggest that this government does not have a right to question on occasions, like you can question any portfolio, the performance of a department or the bias of a department if it comes to a media issue, is wrong. I think it is an important and valid position that we can take.

If it were true that there was some bias concerning favouritism of the Labor Party from a major media outlet, this government has policy direction through a board. While I am talking about the board, let us remember what a board of management does. It does not do editing and it does not run down to the cutting room floor of any particular area. The board of management does not just determine news content. A board of management is fair, looks at the entire company’s operations and the fiscal responsibility of the corporation and appoints a CEO. The CEO runs the day-to-day aspects of the ABC, not the board of management. For Senator Wortley to suggest that the board of management is controlling the day-to-day operations of the ABC is ludicrous. It would not happen. It is impossible. A board of management would simply meet to discuss major policy directions, not day-to-day operations. That is very important.

Coming back to the possibility of the ABC showing a program biased towards the Labor Party, that is something we have the right to question. There are procedures in place and issues in relation to the ABC so that, if we do have a genuine complaint, we can follow it through with the right process. This parliament has guaranteed, through legislation, that the ABC will be independent in all areas—and we accept that—to ensure that what is broadcast is free from political interference. As I have pointed out, we appoint a board of management. That board of management appoints a CEO and does not get involved in the day-to-day operations of the ABC. The government regard, as I am sure all Australians do, this independence to be a critical part of the ABC’s role.

However, as a taxpayer funded national broadcaster, the ABC does have a responsibility to meet audience expectations and community standards. We reflect community standards, especially in the area of news and current affairs. It is certainly a statutory duty of the ABC board to ensure that the gathering and presentation of news and information is accurate and impartial according to the recognised standards of objective journalism. That is an oversight function the board of the ABC would certainly have.

Accordingly, where the government considers that the ABC has not met these high expectations, parliament and the community again have a justified reason to draw to the ABC’s attention, openly and publicly, any criticism in this regard. Also, a key to responding to community expectations is a rigorous and independent complaints handling process—and this is the crux of the matter. The government is continuing to examine options for developing a strengthened independent complaints handling process, not only for the ABC but also for SBS, to supplement the existing internal processes.

The government is also committed to expanding the Australian Communications and Media Authority’s capacity to consider complaints about the ABC and SBS and their services. This will certainly provide a more complete, streamlined and responsive complaints handling process, through which ACMA will be able to consider complaints alleging serious and specific cases of bias, such as that before the chamber today, and any lack of balance, inaccuracy or unfair treatment in respect of ABC and SBS broadcasts or publications. I am sure the Labor Party would want to support a program promoting Labor policies or Labor issues during an election campaign in an election year. But, after drawing it to the ABC’s attention, we have to move forward with confidence that this will not occur and that it will be a balanced program. We trust that this will be the case, but we have the right on every occasion to draw to the attention— (Time expired)

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In rising to speak in this debate, I also take note of answers given to my question today. My question was about the production of a new drama program and public statements that were linked to one of the government senators. I then went on to particular questions about the role in history that the particular drama program was covering. I thanked the minister for her responses. In fact, in her first round of responses, which did not refer to the program—nor to any parts of the question I asked—she raised a very strong defence of the independence of the ABC and the grievance and complaint handling mechanisms currently in place in the ABC, which are intended to be strengthened.

Indeed, in a way we have all acknowledged that the ABC belongs to all of us, to our community, and we remind the government that the ABC has never been—and was never intended to be—a government broadcaster. It is a national broadcaster. We know, from years of Senate estimates questions, from years of questions in this place and from years of comments made throughout the community, that no organisation is subject to more scrutiny, more questions or more allegations than the ABC.

Amanda Vanstone (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, actually that’s the immigration department.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge that interjection, Minister, because, as with good public sectors everywhere, including the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the ABC must also be subject to scrutiny—and, indeed, the ABC is.

My question specifically asked the minister whether the same kind of defence that she made—the statements about independent scrutiny and the complaints mechanisms that are in place—could be made to the community and, in fact, whether the ABC could be defended. I ask whether her defence could also be directed to her colleagues who comment through other media outlets. I thank Senator McGauran because he clarified the role that Senator Fierravanti-Wells took. It was not a complaint, according to Senator McGauran, but a warning. So the role of government senators now, before having seen any product and before having any discussion, is to go into the public media and warn the national broadcaster that they have a strong history of left-wing bias, so they are being watched.

We have not only an established complaints mechanism, scrutiny within the Senate estimates process and an understanding by all employees of the ABC of their clear role to have independent coverage of events but also a role for government members of the parliament, including the Senate! In this piece of Weekend Australian journalism, a government member is proudly described as an ‘ABC critic’. I have not had a chance to check that with Senator Fierravanti-Wells. I know that Senator Fierravanti-Wells has criticised the ABC in this place, but I am interested to see that the role of a government senator is to go into the public arena, to be proclaimed as an ABC critic and to warn the national broadcaster about their role.

I also thank Senator Parry for clarifying, again, the role of the ABC and its charter—which is something I think all Australians understand, Senator Parry. I know that the people who work in the ABC understand the charter; it is an integral part of their job to know what their role must be.

Sometimes it is important to remind the people in this place that there is a relationship between the community and the ABC. The Howard government was genuinely taken aback after it established the Mansfield review in its first term. It is a good thing to review any agency; no-one argues with that. But the number of Australian community members who wanted to have a say about their ABC genuinely took members of the government by surprise. The overwhelming volume and content of responses and the deep sense of trust with which so many members of the community viewed the ABC took them by surprise. That does not mean that organisations should not be subject to review and to genuine scrutiny about bias, but I question strongly whether we need to go out and warn them.

I am also overwhelmed, as Senator Wortley mentioned, by the response to a part of the question about historical fact—maybe the minister did not hear the specifics of the question—and whether the minister could tell her colleagues that the ABC cannot be asked to rewrite history just because the government is feeling political heat over its extreme industrial relations changes. The answer from the minister was, ‘No,’ so I thought that perhaps the opportunity could be taken again. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.