Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Communications and the Arts (Senator Fifield) to a question without notice asked by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wong) today relating to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

For those who were here—perhaps you were at question time; perhaps you weren't—Senator Wong asked a series of questions about what's actually going on with the ABC. Sadly, the minister stood up and attempted to give an answer to the senator's questions about political interference with our ABC—it belongs to all of us as Australians, not to the Liberal Party. The Australian Labor Party and many people across this nation who care about the ABC think the minister should not be in that seat anymore; he shouldn't be in that chair. He's not fit to be a minister, based on what's been reported about what he did around the ABC.

Let me take you through a little bit of why we think this minister should resign and why the current Prime Minister, Prime Minister Morrison, should ask him to resign, if the minister won't walk away himself. There was a meeting, which has been reported on the public record now, between Mr Turnbull, Minister Fifield and Justin Milne, who was the chairman of the ABC. We know Mr Milne was chosen by this government. He was recommended to the Governor-General by Minister Fifield himself, and it's on the public record that they said he would do the job well because he was close to the Prime Minister and had a good relationship with the government, and they were very happy about putting him in. Clearly they thought he was quite a capable person. He was able to understand what they were saying. He was able to implement his role as chairman. That's what they said: they said he was the right man for the job.

When things started to get reported in the paper independently of this government—a report by Emma Alberici in particular, and another one by another journalist, Mr Probyn—this government got pretty upset. Now, they've had a good go at the ABC on the way through. Since 2014 they've taken $360 million out of the ABC, when they said there would be no cuts to the ABC. They've cut to such a level that 800 jobs have been lost at our ABC. They think it was okay: 'no cuts to the ABC', and that's what they did. We've seen a drop in Australian content and services. That was under Mr Abbott, but we've got Mr Turnbull in between, right up to his eyeballs in what I'm talking about, and now we've got Mr Morrison, on watch when they cut $83.7 million this year. So this is what's going on with the ABC: it's constantly under attack, under review—over and over again—and the subject of three pieces of legislation to change its charter while this government has been in charge.

Mr Milne got a call from these two—from Prime Minister Turnbull and from this minister—and they basically went hell for leather with Mr Milne, saying to him, 'This is wrong, and you have to get rid of these journalists.' They're standing up in this place and saying: 'No, we didn't say that. Yes, we did have a meeting with Mr Milne'—they accept that. But they continue to deny the nature of their conversation with Mr Milne. But Milne, the smart guy that they put in, knows what was going on and what they said. They basically said to him, 'Go back, sack Alberici and get rid of Probyn.' We know this because Ms Guthrie, who was the CEO of the ABC, was sacked and, in her defence, gave documentation to the board of the ABC. That documentation says the most outrageous things about her conversation with Mr Milne, so we have on the public record in reports that have been published in The Australian and in The Conversation, by Michelle Grattan, that this minister and the Prime Minister so intimidated Mr Milne that he went back and had a half-hour conversation with Ms Guthrie and said that she should sack Emma Alberici and she should get rid of Mr Probyn as well—that she should kill him off. They continue to deny this, but these outrageous claims have been put on the record for the board of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, who are supposed to be standing up for us.

I put to you that the minister's answers were inadequate. He should resign. He is not fit to hold this role. He has intimidated the ABC, he has taken away from the independence of our great institution—our ABC, not the Liberal Party's ABC—and he is severely in breach of the ministerial standards to which he should be held accountable.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we just heard from Senator O'Neill was based on not one shred of evidence. In fact, the opposite is true. Let's be clear: the very central claim that Senator O'Neill just put, for those who may be listening, did not happen. That is what the secretary of the department found after conducting the review. That report found that there was no request or suggestion by the former Prime Minister or any government minister to terminate the employment of a journalist or ABC staff member. Those are the facts. Senator O'Neill can try to claim that she knows what was said in these meetings that she wasn't in—and that the report found was not said—or that she has some special insight, but there is not one shred of evidence to back it up.

Like most Australians, there are many aspects of the ABC that I enjoy and quite love.

Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tell us.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will tell you, Senator Keneally, thank you for your interjection: the cricket in the summer. Who doesn't think that Jim Maxwell as the voice of cricket in Australia is fantastic? I used to like Kerry O'Keeffe as part of the ABC Grandstand cricket commentary. I thought he added a certain pizzazz and humour to the commentary.

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

We could have kept him if you hadn't cut—

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have the interjection from the good senator from Queensland, who says that we could have kept Kerry O'Keeffe if there had been more money coming to the ABC. Unlike the Labor Party and the Greens, we don't believe that the ABC is beyond criticism, but I do enjoy the cricket and rugby league commentary. I think that Andrew Moore and Matty Elliot do a great job. Their back-and-forth on the rugby league coverage is fantastic. I'll often listen to them doing their thing. Locally, we have had some wonderful representatives of the ABC doing local ABC Radio. They continue. We've had in the past Chris Uhlmann here locally before he moved to the national part of the ABC. Good people like Ross Solly and Adam Shirley are currently here in the Canberra market. They do a good job of talking about issues important to their local community. Who in Canberra doesn't love Willow on a Saturday morning doing gardening? Who doesn't love Tim Gavel, the voice of sport in Canberra on the ABC?

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

He quit.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't think we can be blamed for Tim Gavel quitting. He had been there for 30 years and worked seven days a week. I think it was time that Tim Gavel had a rest and a wonderful time with his family, having served the community of Canberra, and sport more broadly in Australia, working for the ABC. I enjoy watching Leigh Sales going toe to toe with politicians and others. Who doesn't like Macca on a Sunday morning?

Senator Keneally interjecting—

Senator Kristina Keneally just put her hand up and indicated that she does not like Macca on a Sunday morning. That is outrageous, but I'm not going to suggest that because you don't like Macca, there is something wrong with your having an opinion about the ABC. Do you know what we don't support? We don't support journalists at the ABC getting their facts wrong. We don't support them when they get their facts wrong, like when you have a journalist who goes out there and talks about company tax cuts, as Emma Alberici did, and makes several clear errors of fact—

Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not material!

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

not material—like confusing revenue with profit. Now, I know that the ALP tends to find those sorts of concepts a bit confusing, but there is a difference between the amount of revenue that a company gets and the amount of profit that a company gets. But it is not something that we see as quality journalism. So, whilst I can enjoy ABCGrandstand in the summer, the commentary when it comes to the rugby league, and the amazing performance of so many of our local ABC journalists, there is no doubt that, when those journalists get it wrong, they're not immune from criticism. When you're getting a billion dollars of taxpayers' money every year, we believe it should be criticised.

But I go back to the central claim made by Senator O'Neill, who thinks the ABC should somehow be beyond criticism. There was no request or suggestion from the former Prime Minister or any government minister to terminate the employment of a journalist or an ABC staff member, and nothing the ALP has put forward can contradict— (Time expired)

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will contribute to this debate on the motion moved by Senator O'Neill about questions in relation to the ABC. There has certainly been a domestic in the ABC. I have been a big fan of the ABC for decades, from back in the sixties, when television first started in the country town where I lived, Jamestown, South Australia—Senator Ruston would be familiar with the spot. The only channel you could get a decent weather report on was the ABC, and nothing changed for many, many years. The seven o'clock news at night gave the clearest weather report, whether it be graziers alerts, rain on the way, dry weather, harvest time—you name it.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Was it accurate?

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course it was accurate! I shouldn't pay any attention to interjections, should I, Madam Deputy President? It was a good report. That's why I liked the ABC, because it really gave attention to rural Australia. It's the same these days: I walk down to my kitchen every morning and the radio goes on to ABC Tamworth, where we listen to Kelly Fuller—Caitlin Furlong filling in at the moment—and many others, with the local news, the weather reports and the stock market with Mike Pritchard. They do a great service. They have a big budget each year: about a billion dollars. I have many friends in this building who have worked for the ABC, Sabra Lane, Lucy Barbour, Anna Henderson, Stephen Dziedzic et cetera, who do their job very well.

When it comes to the accusations and the political football being thrown around now about who blamed who, who was responsible for the managing director resigning, who was responsible for the chairman of the board, Mr Milne, resigning, and who caused all the troubles, I don't know. I see it as a dispute within the ABC. There are accusations that the minister and the former Prime Minister were involved. Claims that the government sought to undermine the ABC's independence through budgets, reviews and board appointments are without basis. The legislation provides for an independent nomination panel process to be initiated for each board vacancy. This has occurred on each occasion—it's as simple as that. All appointments have followed the legislative requirements. Decisions have been taken by cabinet and appointments made by the federal executive council. On Thursday, 11 October, the Minister for Communications received the report from the inquiry undertaken by the Secretary of the Department of Communications and the Arts. This report states that both the former chair and the former managing director advised the inquiry:

… there was no request or suggestion by the former Prime Minister or any Government Minister to terminate the employment of a journalist or ABC staff member.

It's well worth noting that the report says that.

With more than $1 billion in taxpayer funding every year, the ABC enjoys greater funding certainty than any other media organisation in Australia. How true that is! They've got a billion-dollar budget. Have a look at the competition in the private sector, with the amalgamations, cost cutting et cetera, and the job losses of other networks trying to compete—a pretty tough industry, the media these days. But, as I said, I'm a big fan of the ABC. The government will apply an indexation clause to the operational basis funding of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation over the next triennium funding period, from July 2019 to June 2022. They, like any other business, have to be efficient with their money, cut their costs and not waste taxpayers' money. I'm sure they do their best at that, but, of course, you can always do better.

On 12 September, the former chair, Justin Milne, advised the minister for communications that the board no longer believed the managing director was best placed to lead the organisation. That was the chairman's position at the time and how he informed the minister. The minister for communications, Senator Fifield, said:

I indicated to the chair that I respected the managing director's position was, under the legislation, a matter for the board.

On 23 September, the former chair advised the minister that the board had just met and resolved to terminate the tenure of the managing director effective the following morning. The minister for communications advised the Prime Minister shortly afterwards. So, on 24 September, the minister issued a statement reiterating the board's independence in deciding to end Ms Guthrie's tenure, a decision by the board. So, with the accusations going here, the political football keeps being kicked around. On 26 September, following reports about the former chair's involvement with staffing matters, the minister met with the Prime Minister to undertake an inquiry to establish the facts, to be headed by the secretary of the department of communications. On 27 September the chair resigned, and so it goes on. But the main thing is that the ABC keeps doing its job. It'll be kicked around as a football. No doubt Senate estimates will have plenty of questions, and we'll see how that eventuates.

Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take part in this take-note debate on the question Senator Wong asked of Senator Fifield. The senator did ask about the tenor of the meeting. In fact, she asked about the specific words that were said by the Prime Minister—then Malcolm Turnbull—and the minister for communications, Minister Fifield, that prompted Mr Milne to feel that he could press the managing director of the ABC to sack journalists. Now, the minister artfully dodged the question and refused to answer. We heard a lot of blather but we didn't get much context. Surely Mr Milne did not just dream up the idea that he could pick up the phone and order the sacking of Mr Andrew Probyn or Ms Emma Alberici—that he could just write these things in an email and direct them to the management. Surely he must have felt he needed to act on the instructions of the minister and the then Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull.

But this minister does have a great deal of form when it comes to interfering in the ABC. He did try to give a commitment in September 2017, when he said: 'I give all colleagues a guarantee that the government won't support anything that is to the detriment of the ABC.' Well, since that time, the minister has sought to interfere in the ABC in quite significant ways. First, of course, we have the competitive neutrality review. It sounds all so very nice and benign. Actually, it is the deal he did with One Nation to secure their support for the government. He agreed to have a competitive neutrality review. This is not some benign, no-impact review. In fact, it was described in the Australian Financial Review on 15 August 2017 as 'a deal for the biggest assault on the ABC's independence in decades'. That's how the Australian Financial Review described Minister Fifield's deal with One Nation for a competitive neutrality review into the ABC.

Of course, Minister Fifield this year alone has found many occasions to complain directly to ABC management, not to the board. He feels it is well within his purview as minister to pick up the phone or shoot off an email when he sees something on his screens he doesn't like. First, in January, it was over the date of the Hottest 100. Believe it or not, the minister thought that the moving of the Hottest 100 was somehow politically motivated by the ABC, and he felt he needed to complain. In February, it was the Emma Alberici corporate tax articles. These, of course, were the subject of great complaint by the minister and by the Prime Minister. The ABC conducted a review and decided that there were no material errors in her report and, in fact, the great transgression, if I may use that word, was that she veered from editorial into opinion. That was fixed. The articles were reposted and life has carried on. In March, the minister complained about the Tonightly sketch. In April he complained about a comedy sketch by Black Comedy on the ABC Indigenous Facebook page. And then, again, he was back in May, complaining about Emma Alberici and an innovation story. The complaints review at the ABC found that there was no problem with the article besides a minor issue, and it was nothing that would merit the sacking of a journalist.

But this is how the minister has chosen to go about his role as minister for communications: in response to Senator Wong's question today the minister said, 'I in no way, shape or form sought to influence employment matters at the ABC and I never would.' That is completely not true. In October or November 2016, the minister sought to insert himself into the enterprise bargaining deal the ABC were seeking to strike with their staff. In fact, The Australian said that the minister questioned how the ABC could agree to a deal 'particularly in circumstances where the ABC is facing a number of competing priorities,' and that they are offering benefits which are 'significantly more generous than those adopted by any other Australian government body'. That is how the minister thinks of the ABC—as if it is an Australian government body. It is not. It is an independent media organisation. It is not a state broadcaster; it is a public broadcaster. And it is clear from what we saw in question time today that the minister for communications does not understand that distinction.

Question agreed to.