Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The member for Banks has made some good points in his contribution to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment Bill 2006. He has indicated that the ABC provides good quality programming and that in the main it attempts to discharge its responsibilities under its charter. Certainly I have no difficulty with the programming on the ABC. I do have some difficulty with some segments, particularly in relation to news, and I will articulate that later in his contribution.

The Australian Labor Party is skating on pretty thin ice in its argument opposing this bill. The Australian Labor Party would do best and gain more credibility in the electorate by stopping being politically correct on this issue and starting to talk about things like good governance, integrity, conflict of interest and how you run a board in a proper way. Rather than appealing to the left-wing, politically correct people in the ABC, it should basically think of the national interest—indeed, the ABC’s interest—and support this bill.

There is no conspiracy here. The government is not into that. That is not why this bill is before the parliament. But there is a conflict of interest having a staff director on the board of this fine Australian organisation. There is a conflict of interest—nobody can deny that—and that conflict of interest has been amply demonstrated. The best evidence of that is the fact that the ASX chief, Maurie Newman, found himself having to resign from the board, blaming a gross breach of boardroom confidentiality. Mr Newman said that he could no longer be assured that accepted corporate governance standards would be observed on the board. He noted the refusal of the staff elected director to agree to the board’s corporate governance protocols.

That clearly points out the conflict of interest that a staff elected director has on the board of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. That cannot be denied. I do not see why the Labor Party should stand in the parliament and deny that because it is just the fact of the matter. There is a conflict of interest and that cannot be allowed to continue. You would not have a conflict of interest on the boards of Australia’s major corporations—the BHPs or Woodsides of this world. It would not be allowed. It would not be tolerated. Nor should we tolerate a conflict of interest on the board of the ABC, and that is why the government is moving to fix this problem. There is no difference between the boardrooms of Australia and the boardroom of the ABC. There has to be good governance, there has to be integrity and there has to be no conflict of interest. It is very hard to find another Australian government agency where there is a staff elected director on the board. For example, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, in my area, has no staff elected person—and it does not need one. The board should operate as boards do in the corporate world.

The other point is that there will be no impact on the independence of the ABC by taking the staff elected director off the board—none whatsoever. The ABC remains absolutely independent, as per its charter. Taking a staff elected director off does not change that. A strong board, an impartial board and a board that does not have a conflict of interest is needed to make sure that the ABC meets its charter.

Currently there is an area where the ABC does not meet its charter, and I put it to the parliament that that area is in the reporting of news. Let me be the first person to say that I deal with the ABC virtually every day. I deal with ABC North Queensland, in Townsville. Even though I am aware of the political affiliations of some of the journalists over the years, to a person they have been scrupulously impartial. I am very pleased and proud to be able to say that my ABC reports the news as it is, with no editorial bias. And that is a good thing. The 630 ABC North Queensland newsroom can be proud that they are true professionals.

But you cannot say that about ABC newsrooms in Sydney, Canberra or Melbourne because there is ample evidence of misreporting and bias, and what makes me especially angry is the editorialising, particularly out of Canberra, that occurs in the nightly seven o’clock news service. A news bulletin is to report the news, not to editorialise. I do not mind how much the ABC editorialises in programs like The 7.30 Report, Media Watch, Insiders or whatever. Go for it, because viewers know that that is the kind program it is, but it is despicable, disgraceful and unprofessional that the ABC editorialises in the 7 pm news service. That has to stop—and a strong board has to stop that. I call on the ABC board to do what they need to do to cut out this bias that exists in the Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra newsrooms.

Let me give you an example of this that happened to me last week. I was asked about some comments attributed to Piers Akerman on the Prime Minister’s tenure in the job. I made a very clear comment and, to their credit, ABC radio’s AM program, who were the first to report my comments, reported them accurately—as they should. When I was asked about the Prime Minister I said: ‘The Prime Minister is there for as long as he wants to be. None of us want him to go. He’s a great Prime Minister. But one day he will go—as we all will go—and when Peter Costello takes his place he will do a great job, and he could even do a better job than the Prime Minister.’ I made those comments because we all know that in many corporations you get key people and everybody says, ‘Gee, we don’t want to lose that person; how would you fill that person’s shoes?’ and, when you do lose them, often you get a better person in their shoes, not realising that that can happen. So I was making that point. But how did ABC television report that? They were very clever: they cut out the first bit and just reported the second bit. What they reported is what I said, but they—don’t shake you head, Member for Richmond—

See this speech in context