Tim Storer (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

( Threats to the independence of the ABC are nothing new. By my estimation, since the mid-seventies, no fewer than four of the 11 ABC board chairs have had their terms cut short by failing to live up to the expectations of the government of the day, both coalition and Labor. Three managing directors have met the same fate. What unites them all is that they were subject to less than transparent processes, which have cumulatively led to a loss of public confidence not in the independence of the ABC but in its ability to withstand attacks on that independence. And now it has happened again, despite the 2012 introduction of new measures for board appointments designed to ensure, as stated by the government of the day, a transparent and democratic board appointment process that appoints non-executive directors on merit. In recent years the intention and spirit of this process has been ignored on at least three occasions, leading to public disquiet about the independence and integrity of the ABC. Three appointees to the ABC board by this government were not recommended by the independent nomination panel. The fourth was highly rated by the panel, then withdrew from the process but was subsequently appointed by the minister.

The National Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Act 2012 established an independent nomination panel designed to nominate appointments of non-executive directors to the board of the ABC and SBS based on merit. According to the act, the nominees are required to have experience in connection with the provision of broadcasting services or in communication or management, expertise in financial or technical matters, and cultural or other interests relevant to an oversight of a pubic organisation engaged in the provision of broadcasting. But the act also enabled the Prime Minister of the day to ignore the panel's nominations as long as he or she tabled the reasons for that appointment in each house of the parliament no later than 15 sitting days after the appointment was made. The intention was honourable, but it has turned out to have a substantial deficiency.

On 17 November 2009 in this place, former senator Nick Minchin said:

While the government is establishing a nomination panel for the appointment process, at the end of the day scope remains for the minister and the Prime Minister to ignore panel nominations and appoint whoever they like.

And so it has turned out to be, setting in train a course of events which, once again, saw the ABC with a managing director whose term was cut short and a chair whose actions forced him to resign. A bare majority of the current ABC board were appointed as a result of recommendations from the independent nomination panel. Two of the current board members were not nominated as qualified candidates by the panel; one did not even apply.

What is required are modest, measured, graduated steps to encourage governments to accept the nominations of the independent nomination panel. Should they not, the voters would see where responsibility for the consequences of the government's actions lie—with the government and no-one else. And that is where responsibility for the recent episodes centring on the former chair and former managing director of the ABC lies—with the government and no-one else. They appointed Justin Milne. He headed the board who appointed Ms Guthrie. Neither process was sufficiently transparent. We now know that the minister was informed of the breakdown in relations between the board and Ms Guthrie on 12 September, 12 days before her dismissal became public. The minister denies that he's ever, in any way, shape or form, sought to involve himself in ABC staffing matters, but clearly Mr Milne saw it differently.

The current process for appointing non-executive directors to the ABC board may have been well intentioned, but it has failed. It's time for the Senate to pass a modest, measured, graduated step so that the chances for political interference in the ABC, real or perceived, are reduced and the public can be assured that the pre-eminent cultural institution is not only genuinely independent but also has the protections to withstand attacks on that independence as well as its autonomy and integrity.