Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Sustainable Development and Cities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition strongly supports our national broadcasters. We recognise the important role that both the ABC and SBS play in broadcasting both television and radio services across Australia and, more recently, in terms of their online content and presence. While in government the coalition ensured that the ABC and SBS were well resourced and able to meet the challenges of the future, including the transition to the digital environment.

We want both the SBS and ABC to be strong and innovative broadcasters and to serve well the unique roles they play in Australia and in Australian life. The coalition is committed into the future to ensuring a well-resourced ABC and SBS in recognition of their unique role as national broadcasters. However, it is because these organisations receive substantial taxpayer funding that we need to ensure that they adopt the highest level of corporate governance and have in place appropriate governance structures. These broadcasters need strong and professional boards who understand the role of the broadcasters and their responsibilities to Australians, who fund them.

This legislation consists of two parts. The first part of the National Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 seeks to amend the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 and the Special Broadcasting Service Corporation Act 1991 to implement a new, merit based board appointment process to appoint directors to the ABC and SBS boards. The merit based selection process establishes a nomination panel that is to conduct a selection process for each appointment of a director. The nomination panel will comprise a chair and at least two, and not more than three, other members appointed by the Secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet for part-time office for a period not exceeding three years.

The nomination panel must advertise any vacancy nationally, assess all applications against selection criteria set by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and provide a report to the minister, or the Prime Minister and the minister in the case of the ABC chairperson, containing at least three nominations. The Prime Minister must consult the Leader of the Opposition before recommending the person to be appointed as ABC chairperson. If the person to be appointed as ABC chairperson is not nominated by the nomination panel, the Prime Minister must table the reasons for that appointment within 15 sitting days. The bill proposes that the following candidates are not eligible for appointment to the boards of national broadcasters: a member or former member of the Parliament of the Commonwealth; a member or former member of the parliament of a state or the Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory or the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory; or a person who is or was a senior political staffer. The bill gives the minister the ability to determine by legislative instrument the definition of ‘senior political staff member’, but the explanatory memorandum says that it is envisaged that it would specify positions such as chief of staff, special adviser, principal adviser, senior adviser, media adviser and adviser.

In October 2008, Labor announced that they would commence a new merit based selection process and seek to reinstate the staff elected director. At this time they called for public nominations for the positions of directors of the two boards and created a nomination panel to assess the applications. In April 2009, the government announced the appointment of two directors to the SBS board and two directors to the ABC board, using the new merit based selection process. Senate estimates confirmed that the government spent approximately $200,000 on the selection process utilised to appoint the four new directors to the boards of the national broadcasters in April 2009. This included payment for the members of the nomination panel, engagement of a recruitment firm and the advertisement of the vacancies. As mentioned in the bill, there is no guarantee that the nomination process will produce a successful nomination and it is still within the government’s power to make an appointment that is not a recommendation of the nomination panel, provided the selection process has been undertaken. Further, the legislation is not actually required to facilitate the government’s nomination and appointment process, as the government has already undertaken such a process.

Senator Conroy told Lateline Business on 5 December 2007 that the merit selection process was based around the Nolan principles imported from the UK. In 2006, when the Senate held an inquiry into the composition of the ABC board and the coalition’s changes to remove the staff elected director of the ABC, departmental officers told the inquiry:

If the argument to implement something like the Nolan rules relates to avoiding the appointment of board members who are too closely associated with a political party, a Nolan rules type process would not necessarily deal with that issue.

The bill proposes that former state and federal politicians and senior political staff are not eligible for appointment to the boards of the SBS and ABC. Former politicians have made a valuable contribution to the board of the ABC and other government bodies. For instance, in 1994 Labor appointed former South Australian Labor Premier John Bannon to the ABC board. Former Liberal senator Neville Bonner was appointed to the ABC board in 1983.

Labor’s position on the value of former politicians on government boards is entirely inconsistent, as evidenced by Mr Rudd’s appointment of former Labor minister John Kerin to the CSIRO board, former Victorian Premier Steve Bracks as an adviser for the car industry and former coalition Treasurer Peter Costello to the Future Fund Board of Guardians. It is hypocritical for the government to claim on the one hand that former politicians provide valuable skills and experience to assist some boards but on the other hand not the boards of the national broadcasters. Further, there is no cooling off period for former staff or politicians but rather a blanket ban on them ever being eligible for appointment to the board of a national broadcaster. This is at odds with the principle of the 18-month cooling off period incorporated in the Rudd Labor government’s Standards of Ministerial Ethics. These proposals need to be examined for what they really are. They do not prevent current or former party officials or those with other political affiliations from being appointed to the boards. For instance, in the past former Labor candidate David Hill has served as both Chairman and Managing Director of the ABC and Michael Kroger also served as a director on the ABC board. These proposals do not restrict such appointments, which further serves to highlight how superficial the proposals really are.

We should also at this point question the bona fides of this minister, Senator Conroy, when it comes to political interference. Senator Conroy has done very little during his time as minister besides waste money on his flawed NBN. We have seen millions wasted on the failed NBN mark 1 tender and we are now seeing some exorbitant salaries being paid as part of the NBN Co, including to former staffer Jody Fassina, who was appointed to the board of Tasmania NBN Co and the $450,000 salary—almost $100,000 more than is paid to the Prime Minister—being paid to Senator Conroy’s mate and disgraced former Queensland MP Mike Kaiser to do government relations for a company with no customers, no services, no income and no business plan. Senator Conroy seems happy to have an empty Labor suit for an empty shell company created on an empty Labor promise but not to even consider a competent and capable former parliamentarian or senior public policy specialist for the SBS or ABC boards. Despite the nomination process machinations, the candidate selection and evaluation process and the superficial personnel prohibitions that we have talked about, the Rudd Labor government can still appoint whoever they want to the ABC and SBS—and you can be certain that they will not be a Labor critic.

The second part of this bill relates to the position of staff elected director on the ABC board. The first staff elected position on the ABC board was introduced by the Whitlam government, without legislation, in 1975. The position was then abolished by the Fraser government before the Hawke government enshrined a staff appointed director position in legislation in 1986. In 2006, the coalition amended the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 to remove the position of staff elected director from the legislated composition of the ABC board to improve corporate governance of the organisation. The decision to abolish the staff elected director was announced following the coalition government’s Review of Corporate Governance of Statutory Authorities and Office Holders conducted by Mr John Uhrig AC, and the removal of the staff elected director was consistent with Uhrig’s recommendations about representative appointments. The Uhrig review concluded:

The review does not support representational appointments to governing boards as representational appointments can fail to produce independent and objective views. There is the potential for these appointments to be primarily concerned with the interests of those they represent, rather than the success of the entity they are responsible for governing. While it is possible to manage conflicts of interest, the preferred position is to not create circumstances where they arise.

A staff elected director will be forever mindful of his or her constituency—in this case, the staff of the ABC. I am certain that much of the time there is a coincidence of interest, a shared purpose and alignment of objectives between the staff and the corporation. But that is not always going to be the case. Innovation and reform, by their very nature, distresses and disturbs the status quo and can disrupt settled positions and ways of doing things.

Innovation and reform is about change. Change can be resisted by those that it is impacting upon by the transformation of the staff elected director into a position of conflict. Does the staff elected director feel obliged to defend the entrenched, or feel a duty to protect the potentially retrenched? A director fully discharging their responsibilities, who values the important role and contribution of staff and who fully embraces the corporate objectives and imperatives, will engage in the thoughtful change management strategies of the organisation and ensure there is effective and sensitive transitional support.

Would the remarkable gains made by the ABC online, for instance, have occurred? Would the ABC’s presence and service reach and the expansion of its activities into rural and remote areas have occurred if a staff elected director was of the view that these welcome and important innovations were at the expense of resources going to roles and positions in the traditional or established and existing areas of activity?

It may well be possible to abate and manage corporation and constituency conflicts of interest, but is it not preferable to not create the potential for that conflict in the first place? The position of staff elected director was seen as an anomaly amongst government agency boards. The other broadcaster, SBS, does not have a staff elected director.

The coalition was also concerned about the potential conflict of interest of a staff-elected director who is legally required to act in the best interests of the ABC but is appointed as a representative of staff and is elected by them. The explanatory memorandum to the 2006 bill stated:

The Bill addresses an ongoing tension relating to the position of staff-elected Director. A potential conflict exists between the duties of the staff-elected Director under paragraph 23(1)(A) of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 to act in good faith in the best interests of the ABC, and the appointment of that Director via election by ABC staff. The election method creates a risk that a staff-elected Director will be expected by the constituents who elect him or her to place the interests of staff ahead of the interests of the ABC as a whole where they are in conflict.

The Senate held an inquiry into the legislation to remove the staff elected director in 1996. In relation to conflicts of interest, in giving evidence to the Senate committee inquiry officers from the department confirmed the view of Uhrig to the committee that ‘while it is possible to manage conflicts of interest, the preferred position is not to create circumstances where they arise’. Professor Stephen Bartos, Director of the National Institute for Governance, made a submission to the inquiry that stated:

… the Uhrig Report is an accurate reflection of commonly accepted practice in Australian corporate governance. In this country we have applied a model of governance that does not favour representative appointments.

And that:

More broadly, staff-elected directors on a Board do represent an anomaly amongst Australian public and private sector boards in general governance terms …

At the time of the 2006 announcement, the then Chairman of the ABC, Mr Donald McDonald AO, stated that he had worked with three staff elected directors and said:

Inevitably there has been a tension between the expectations placed by others on their role and their established duties as directors of a corporation.

In further evidence to the Senate committee inquiry, the department told the committee:

The issue is not really about what may or may not have happened in relation to individual directors in the past. The issue is one of what is best practice corporate governance for the ABC, and Uhrig has recommended that there should not be positions like this on government boards.

The 2006 Senate committee concluded:

This Bill aligns the operations of the ABC Board with modern principles of corporate governance and accountability, as explained in the Uhrig Review. By abolishing the position of staff-elected Director, the Bill resolves the potential conflict of interest in being under a legal duty to act in good faith and in the best interests of the ABC, whilst at the same time being expected by those that have elected them (i.e. ABC staff) to primarily represent and act in their best interests.

This bill represents an important step forward in reforming the ABC board and ensuring the longevity of the ABC as a public broadcasting service to the people of Australia today and into the future. The same concerns that led to the coalition decision to remove the staff elected director position from the ABC board remain, and these have not been addressed by the government. Not one single piece of challenging evidence or argument has been brought forward to tackle assessment after assessment about why this proposition is inconsistent with modern concepts of corporate governance.

The minister’s second reading speech merely states that the government does not believe there is any inherent conflict of interest. The government offers no evidence to support that assertion. The coalition does not agree. The coalition’s position in relation to this legislation is twofold. We remain resolutely opposed to the reinstatement of the position of staff elected director. We also believe that the bill should be amended to provide for an 18-month cooling-off period for former MPs and political staff serving on the board.

The coalition think Labor’s perpetual ban on former political staff and members of parliament serving on the boards of the national broadcasters is a cheap stunt. It is hypocritical and inconsistent. Former politicians and their staff may have skills and experience applicable to the board. Indeed, former politicians, including Labor’s John Bannon, have made valuable contributions to the boards in the past. Why are the government so against former politicians on the boards of the ABC and SBS when they have appointed former politicians to other boards and positions? It is inconsistent. If they claim appointing former politicians equates to political interference, why are they so comfortable putting former MPs on other government boards? Labor’s arguments do not stack up. They should be seen for what they are: more, and merely more, Labor spin—particularly in this portfolio.

How can Senator Conroy, the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, claim with any semblance of credibility that he does not play politics with appointments? He has appointed his mate Jody Fassina to the board of Tasmania NBN Co., and his mate Mike Kaiser is receiving a $450,000 salary as government relations adviser to NBN Co. The approach of the government should be seen for what it is. They have given us absolutely no reason to believe that they are genuine about removing apparent or perceived political interference on the boards of our national broadcasters.

This merit selection process is full of holes, and I have no doubt this government will fill every one of them with their like-minded mates. They cannot tell us why it is okay to appoint former politicians to some boards and not others and, even with this system, they cannot guarantee that the ABC and SBS boards will not be stacked with Labor sympathisers. The coalition do not oppose the merit selection process but we think there should be some consistency so that former MPs and their staff can be considered for the boards if they have the necessary skills.

For consistency with the Rudd government’s own ministerial code of ethics, we will seek to amend the bill to implement an 18-month cooling-off period for former MPs and political staff. In relation to schedule 2 of the bill, Labor has not been able to justify the need to reinstate the staff-elected director. We remain opposed to the reinstatement of a staff-elected director on the ABC board for the same reasons we acted to remove that position when in government. If our amendments to omit this schedule from the bill are not successful, we cannot support the bill. I will speak further about the specific amendments in the consideration-in-detail stage. I urge members of this parliament to see these changes for what they are: they are a stunt and they add nothing to the long-term wellbeing, viability and vitality of our national broadcasters.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will start by saying I do not agree with the previous speaker’s assessment of the bill. In fact, I rise to support the National Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. The ABC has a long and proud history of providing an independent, high-quality broadcasting service to the people of Australia. It has always been the ABC’s job to nurture our sense of national identity, reflect the richness of our society and give people the accurate and unbiased information they need to fully participate in the life of our nation. In more recent times, SBS has joined the ABC in filling that crucial role.

In recent years there have been genuine concerns that governments on both sides of politics have sought to put their own views of the world or political stamp on the ABC. This kind of political interference, however it is imposed on the ABC, threatens the independence of the ABC and the important and unique role it plays in Australia’s cultural life.

There has been particular criticism of the way in which appointments have been made to the ABC board. It is difficult to defend many of the appointments under previous governments because of the lack of proper process and transparency. Whatever other attributes and experience the candidates had, they invariably had some connection to the politicians who appointed them. This has fed into perceptions of bias that undermine the ABC and lead to poor decision making. The management and editorial teams at the ABC are not doing their job as independent broadcasters if they are constantly looking over their shoulders and worrying about which of their masters they might offend.

There is no doubt that the media world is changing rapidly, and the challenges and opportunities for the ABC in the very near future will be enormous. We need a top-class board whose focus is on the future of the ABC and how it can best fulfil its obligations to the Australian people. The ABC should in no way be a political battleground.

The Labor Party therefore went to the last election, in 2007, with a promise to end political interference in the ABC, and this bill puts in place one of the key mechanisms to achieve that aim. The bill introduces a new transparent and democratic board appointment process in which non-executive directors are appointed on the basis of merit. The government promised to deal with SBS board appointments in the same way and to restore the position of staff-elected director to the ABC board. This National Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 will amend the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 and the Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991 to establish in legislation the new merit based appointment for ABC and SBS non-executive directors and to reinstate a staff-elected director on the ABC board.

A strong and independent national broadcaster is an essential pillar of our democracy. It is incumbent on the ABC and SBS boards to be able to respond to the challenges and opportunities of the emerging digital and online environments. The ABC and SBS cannot function to their maximum capacity without excellent boards. This legislation will ensure that all Australians will have an opportunity to nominate for a place on the ABC or the SBS board and all claims will be considered on their merits by an independent panel. All future appointments will be governed by the overriding principle of selection based on merit. Individuals who, through their abilities, experience and qualities, match the needs of the ABC and SBS will be selected.

The policy makes explicit the exclusion of certain people with political backgrounds from eligibility for board appointments. Current or former members of the Commonwealth parliament, state and territory parliaments or legislative assemblies and current or former senior political staff are not eligible for appointment to the ABC or SBS boards. All future appointments to the ABC and SBS boards will be subject to independent scrutiny by the nomination panel. The process promotes the principles of equal opportunity, and gender and geographical diversity.

The reinstatement of the staff-elected director will further enhance the governance arrangements on the ABC board. The position of staff-elected director is an important enhancement to the ABC’s independence by providing the board with a director who has a unique and important insight into ABC operations. The staff-elected director may often be in the best position to critically examine the advice coming to the board from the ABC’s executive, given their knowledge of the daily operations of the broadcaster.

I began this speech by describing the unique role the ABC plays in our community. The value that people place on the ABC, its credibility and the trust people place in it comes out of the fact that it is part of the community. The ABC is the national broadcaster but its national status is built on its network of local stations. People trust the ABC because the ABC has a presence in their local community. People see themselves and their stories reflected in the programs of the ABC because those programs are produced locally and presented by ABC broadcasters who live in the local community. Nowhere is this better illustrated than by my local ABC stations —ABC Capricornia based in Rockhampton and ABC Tropical North based in Mackay.

I will speak a bit more about ABC Capricornia because there is a message about the operation in Rockhampton that I would like to give to the ABC’s senior management and board. But I will start at the beginning. ABC Capricornia is one of the ABC’s original radio stations. Known originally as 4RK, this radio station predates the commencement of the Australian Broadcasting Commission on 1 July 1932. It was also the first radio station in Queensland outside Brisbane. ABC Capricornia (4RK) started as a commercial station, owned by the Australian Broadcasting Co., beginning its broadcasts on the 29 July 1931. According to information received from radio history enthusiast David Brownsey quoting an unpublished book by Doug Sanderson, On Air, the first broadcast was from the School of Arts building in Bolsover Street Rockhampton at 8 pm on Wednesday 29 July 1931. The official program of the evening shows that the local Musical Union Choir, assisted by the Rockhampton City Band, sang the national anthem and Advance Australia Fair to open the proceedings. A photo in the ABC Capricornia foyer indicates the station was also situated for a time at the post office in Rockhampton in its early years. The station has been located at various places around the Rockhampton city centre over the years. It moved to its present location at 236 Quay Street in 1963. The ABC has moved to identify its stations according to the regions they serve; hence, 4RK is now known as ABC Capricornia. The station celebrated its 75th birthday in 2006.

While ABC Capricornia has transmitted programs through its 837AM transmitter at Gracemere since 1931, the relay stations are more recent additions. FM transmitters at Gladstone, Biloela and Alpha came on stream in later years. ABC Capricornia also has a powerful transmitter near Emerald, broadcasting on 1548AM. The station staff tell me they frequently get calls from interstate and overseas listeners who pick up the broadcasts through the Emerald transmitter.

From 1963 until 1985, ABC Television also broadcast regional programs from Rockhampton. In the mid-1980s, the ABC decided to centralise its television broadcasts, ending the regional programs broadcast from Rockhampton and Townsville. In 2007, an archiving project was started in cooperation with Central Queensland University to copy as much of the old television news footage as possible. That will be a great asset for our region in years to come.

The staff at ABC Capricornia cover all areas of ABC radio operations. They have news journalists, a rural reporter, program presenters and producers and an online producer who maintains their website, along with field reporting. ABC has a strong history of community service, which is today demonstrated by the station’s involvement in community and industry events around central Queensland. The main studio of ABC Capricornia in Quay Street was refurbished in 1998. The building is the former headquarters and gold store of the Mount Morgan Gold Mining Co. The wealth coming from Mount Morgan is responsible for much of the heritage architecture in Quay Street and our local ABC are proud to be part of that history.

Just recently Rockhampton suffered some devastating bushfires in the Mount Archer mountain ranges that ring the north side of Rockhampton. The following is an account written by one of the announcers at ABC Capricornia that highlights the enormous value of an ABC radio station to the local community in these kinds of events.

During the recent bushfires the breakfast program opened up the phone lines to thank the firies following the hellish weekend of the 17-18 October and what was a pleasant surprise was that along with the firies and other emergency services being thanked on air, a few of the listeners rang in to thank ABC Capricornia for our coverage of the fires. This meant a great deal to the crew at ABC Capricornia who had dropped what they were doing over the weekend to provide the best coverage they could. The listeners called in to say that ABC Capricornia was the station that they turned to in times of need and emergency.

ABC Capricornia as a part of local radio is a part of the community; we live here, we work here, we identify with the people here and want to do the best by them at all times. It’s a responsibility and a privilege to be invited into people’s homes both literally as well as figuratively over the airwaves and we never take the loyalty of ABC listeners for granted. The ABC now has a more official role as the Emergency Services Broadcaster, but it’s really just formalising what we’ve been doing for 75 years or so, being a lifeline to people bringing news and information.

Mr Deputy Speaker, as you can see from that, the staff at the ABC in Rockhampton are rightly proud of the entertainment and, more importantly in the case of emergencies, the service they provide to our region. Because of their commitment and professionalism, the people of Central Queensland rely on them to give us information and to tell us about the stories and issues that matter to us.

We are also proud in Central Queensland of the job that has been done by the television news team that operates out of the Rockhampton studio. As I mentioned earlier, the local news bulletins ceased in 1985. The job of the television crew now is to film and produce material for inclusion in statewide and national broadcasts. This is incredibly important to us in Central Queensland. Just as we want to know what is happening in our local region, so too do we want the rest of Queensland and Australia to know about the events and issues relevant to us. As a national broadcaster, it is incumbent on the ABC to tell the whole story about this country, not just what happens in the major cities.

So it has been extremely disappointing to learn in recent months that the management of the ABC has been discussing the possibility of shutting down the television side of the operation in Central Queensland. Instead, the news crew will be relocated to the Gold Coast if this plan goes ahead. This is an enormous kick in the teeth to the staff of ABC Capricornia, and I am angry on their behalf and on behalf of the people of central and western Queensland who deserve to have their stories told. How can anyone tell us that there is not enough happening in this region when it is one of the major hubs of economic activity in this country and when it is at the heart of major developments and innovations in the mining, agricultural, natural resource management and environmental sectors? There are communities going through unprecedented change and growth. I know the member for Flynn, who was to join me in the chamber, knows all about this because it relates to his electorate as well. This all has implications at a state and national level, yet the ABC, the national broadcaster, wants to walk away from being part of this development and does not want to tell those stories. The whispers are that ABC management wants to shift the news crew from Central Queensland so that it can have a full-time news crew at the Gold Coast. The ABC has given assurances that the studio capacity in Rockhampton will remain so that when the need arises a crew can fly in, produce the story and have it broadcast.

I say to the ABC: spare us the weasel words. The truth is that the ABC is considering moving the news crew out of Central Queensland so they can set up at the Gold Coast. What use is studio technology in Rockhampton without a camera person and a journalist to travel to a story in Moranbah or Longreach or Biloela? Those stories about agriculture, mining, renewable energy, clean coal, LNG, rural health, and so on will not be told. Why? So there can be a news crew at the Gold Coast. I mean no disrespect to the Gold Coast. It is a very beautiful part of Queensland. But it is another city and one only an hour’s drive from Brisbane. What about the one-third of Queensland from Bundaberg to Mackay, and west, a centre of economic activity going through enormous change and at the front line of challenges such as climate change, land use, the social impacts of mining and growth? Can the ABC seriously turn its back on those stories so it can run more stories about drunken brawls in Surfers Paradise? To me this is not fulfilling the charter of a national broadcaster. Anyone can tell the stock standard stories of life in the cities, and they all do, but is a news bulletin full of car chases and armed hold-ups telling the whole story of what is important in Australia? I fear that without a news crew based in Central Queensland the ABC news and current affairs programs will look like all the other commercial stations and there will be no-one telling the stories about the Australia beyond the cities.

I am calling on the management and the board of the ABC to reconsider any decision they might have made to go down that path. I want them to recommit to these important parts of Queensland outside the south-east corner by retaining the full television crew in Rockhampton. If the Gold Coast, which I understand is a fast-growing area, needs its own news crew, then work out how to achieve that, but do not do it at our expense. The ABC belongs to all Australians not just those in the city and it must reflect the lives and interests of all Australians. The ABC has always done that by having a genuine presence in, and commitment to, local communities and to change that will undermine the relevance of the ABC and destroy its unique position within Australia’s media landscape.

This bill fulfils an election promise made to those Australians who care about quality independent broadcasting and the unique roles of the ABC and SBS in our social fabric. This bill puts in place the right mechanism to ensure the best possible governance of the ABC and SBS. Those of us in rural and regional Australia especially rely on those board members to honour the ABC’s commitment to be a truly national broadcaster and that commitment must not be surrendered to any other agendas.

I will just return to the central features of this bill and the amendments that we are discussing. Of course the key one is the new mechanism by which directors of the ABC and SBS will be appointed. I think that it is a positive step forward to introduce the notion of merit based appointments. If you look at the guidelines and material that has been published setting out the mechanism, it is robust. There will be advertisements placed right across Australia seeking those who are interested in becoming a member of the ABC or SBS board to put an expression of interest forward. I understand that they have just gone through that process. Expressions of interest closed yesterday. I hope that there is a very broad-ranging cross-section of people from all over Australia who put their names forward to be considered by the nomination panel.

Reflecting on the situation of the ABC in Central Queensland, I would certainly be hoping that there will be a good selection of people from rural and regional Australia. I think that the ABC plays an even more central and important role in telling the stories of rural and regional Australia and providing that link to what is going on in communities and in the world for people living in rural and regional Australia. There are some parts of ABC programming that are particularly geared towards the interests of those people in the country and they have become institutions down the years. I am thinking there of the Country Hour of course on every weekday, and also who could forget Australia All Over with Macca on Sunday mornings?

Some years ago in my first term in this House I was part of the inquiry into regional radio broadcasting around Australia when there were concerns about the decline of regional broadcasting in this country. As we travelled around the smaller rural communities throughout Australia, people told us over and over about that almost personal connection to some of those presenters and programs. Everyone has their favourite stories of where ABC programs and personalities have played their role in our lives. In finishing up, I want to return to the job that local broadcasters do both in Mackay and Rockhampton. They do a terrific job of keeping in touch with our communities and providing that service. (Time expired)

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like the previous speaker, the member for Capricornia, I represent a pretty vast rural area—64,000 square kilometres. It is bigger than Tasmania and certainly relies very heavily on the services of the ABC. There is only one television station that covers all of my electorate, and that is the ABC, and it covers it well. Indeed, we have five national ABC radio stations: one that covers the Mount Gambier area, one that covers the upper south-east, one in the Riverland and one in the Barossa, and many parts of my electorate can get Adelaide’s 891. When I am driving around in my electorate—as I often am because, as I said, I have a vast rural seat—I have access to five different radio stations, and they are all ABC. That is what I listen to, and I am sure there are a lot of farmers on their tractors who do the same thing, along with many people who are travelling around the electorate who rely on the ABC radio stations for their daily needs.

SBS, although one of my colleagues said that it stands for ‘sex between soccer’, attracts a lot of demand in my area. In fact, quite a few other areas do not have access to SBS and want that access. There is more than a multicultural aspect to it. SBS has some amazing programs. I remember one about the American Civil War, which was an extraordinary program and almost made you feel as though you were there. SBS serves a great need in Australia. It was instituted by the Fraser government. I think the retiring member for Kooyong had a fair bit to do with ensuring that SBS became a reality. There is no way we would ever get rid of that sort of TV channel. Even though it has some advertising now, I think people have accepted that as part of the service.

I rise today to speak on the National Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. The legislation consists of a few key parts: the implementation of a supposedly new merit based appointment process to appoint directors to the ABC and SBS boards, the banning of former politicians from appointment to the ABC or SBS boards and staff elected directors. These are key issues for the coalition and for me. In October 2008 Labor announced that they would commence a new merit based selection process and seek to reinstate the staff elected director. This merit selection process is full of holes and allows Labor to fill all the vacancies with their own like-minded people. I am not sure how a staff elected director fulfils the criterion of a merit selection process. In fact, I have very grave doubts that it can.

Both the ABC and SBS have a significant and unique role in Australian broadcasting, and the coalition strongly supports our national broadcasters. As these organisations receive substantial taxpayer funding, it is imperative that they adopt the highest levels of corporate governance—and we are talking here about millions of dollars, of course. It is also important that they have in place appropriate governance structures. The first part of the legislation—the implementation of a new merit based board appointment process—will establish a nomination panel that is to conduct a selection process for each appointment of a director. Labor has pushed for a merit based selection process for the ABC and SBS and proposes the following:

The Nomination Panel comprises a chair and at least 2 and not more than 3 other members appointed by the Secretary of the Prime Minister’s Department for part time office for a period not exceeding 3 years.

The Nomination Panel must advertise any vacancy nationally, assess all applications against selection criteria set by the Minister and provide a report to the Minister or the Prime Minister and Minister—

I suggest that in the case of the present Prime Minister he would certainly be meddling in that—

in the case of the ABC chairperson, containing at least 3 nominations.

The Prime Minister must consult the Leader of the Opposition—

it does not say he has to pay any attention but ‘must consult’ the Leader of the Opposition—

before recommending the person to be appointed as ABC chairperson and if the person to be appointed as ABC chairperson is not nominated by the Nomination Panel, the Prime Minister must table the reasons for that appointment within 15 sitting days.

At the time Labor announced it would commence a new merit based selection process in October 2008 it called for public nominations for the positions of directors of the two boards and then created a nomination panel to assess the applications. In April 2009 Labor announced the appointment of two directors to the SBS board and two directors to the ABC board using the new merit based selection process. Senate estimates later confirmed that the government spent $200,000 on the selection process utilised to appoint the four new directors to the boards during this time, which works out at $50,000 per director. I am not sure that that is good value for taxpayers’ money. This amount included payment for the members of the nomination panel, advertising of the vacancies and the engagement of a recruitment firm. It is worth noting that the bill states that there is:

… no guarantee that the nomination process will produce a successful nomination and it is still within the Government’s power to make an appointment that is not a recommendation of the Nomination Panel …

So there is this easy way out for the Labor government. And they can do this ‘provided the selection process has been undertaken’. But, if Labor wants to appoint one of their own, they certainly can under these rules. It is certainly not a hard and fast rule that the nomination panel will come up with the directors. It still leaves it very much open to government manipulation. It is through the holes in legislation like this that Labor will slide in their own. The legislation is not actually required to facilitate the government’s nomination and appointment process either, as the government has already undertaken this process.

The coalition does not oppose the merit selection process but there does need to be consistency within the legislation. With this system they cannot rule out that the ABC and SBS boards will be stacked with Labor sympathisers. They are talking the talk but not necessarily giving us what they say they are going to do. The bill proposes that former state and federal politicians and senior political staff not be eligible for appointment to the boards of the SBS and the ABC. I can assure those here in the chamber that I have no intention of being a member of the ABC board or the SBS board. That is certainly not a career move I would ever be interested in. I want to get that straight from the outset.

Senator Conroy told Lateline Business on 5 December 2007 that the merit selection process was based around the Nolan principles in the UK. It would be good if the legislation was based on the Nolan principles in the UK, but of course it is full of holes. At the 2006 Senate inquiry into the composition of the ABC board and the coalition’s changes to remove the staff elected director of the ABC, departmental officials said:

If the argument to implement something like the Nolan rules relates to avoiding the appointment of board members who are too closely associated with a political party, a Nolan rules type process would not necessarily deal with that issue.

Indeed, if we are going to appoint staff representatives why don’t we elect a representative of the NFF, for example, to represent the rural needs of the ABC? I suspect that they would have a lot more merit than a staff elected representative. If this is the case then Labor’s perpetual ban on former political staff and members of parliament serving on the boards of the national broadcasters is really just a cheap stunt and is full of inconsistencies.

Former politicians have made a valuable contribution to the ABC board and other government bodies. Labor’s position on the value of former politicians serving on government boards is entirely inconsistent, as evidenced by Mr Rudd’s appointment of former Labor minister John Kerin to the CSIRO board and former Victorian Premier Steve Bracks as an adviser to the car industry. It is hypocritical for the government to claim that former politicians can provide valuable skills and experience to assist some boards but not the boards of the national broadcasters. They have failed to point out how these boards are different from any other arm of government.

Senator Conroy had no problems with former Labor staffer Jody Fassina being appointed to the board of Tas NBN Co. He also has no qualms about the $450,000 salary being paid to the disgraced former Queensland MP Mike Kaiser, who had to resign from parliament for stacking the electorate numbers in the hope of controlling things in Queensland. Mike Kaiser is doing government relations for a company with no customers—so who is he going to relate to?—and no income. But the company has plenty of expenditure, by the sound of it, because Mike Kaiser is getting $100,000 a year more than our Prime Minister.

Instead of offering a ‘cooling-off period’ for former staff and politicians—which we might have some sympathy for—Labor has placed a blanket ban on them ever being eligible for appointment to the board of a national broadcaster. This is a contradiction of the principle of an 18-month cooling-off period contained in the Rudd government’s ‘Standards of Ministerial Ethics’. Labor is inconsistent and has its own rules depending on the circumstances and what suits it at the time.

This legislation does not prevent current or former party officials or those with other political affiliations from being appointed to the boards. For instance, former Labor candidate David Hill served as both Chairman and Managing Director of the ABC and Michael Kroger also served as a director on the ABC board. These proposals do not restrict such appointments, which further serves to highlight how superficial the proposals are.

The coalition proposes that the bill should be amended to provide for an 18-month cooling-off period before former MPs and political staff can serve on the ABC board. I think that is a very sensible amendment that should be accepted by the government. Former politicians and their staff may have skills and experience applicable to the board. Indeed, former politicians, including Labor’s John Bannon, have made a valuable contribution to the board in the past.

Why is Labor so against former politicians serving on the boards of the ABC and SBS when they have appointed former politicians to other boards and positions? It is inconsistent and it is total hypocrisy. If they claim that having former politicians serving on the boards of the ABC and SBS equates to political interference, why are they so comfortable putting former MPs on other government boards? This is another example of Labor spin.

The second part of this bill relates to the position of staff elected director on the ABC board. The first staff elected position on the ABC board was introduced by the Whitlam government, without legislation, in 1975. This position was then abolished by the Fraser government, before the Hawke government enshrined the position in legislation in 1986. In 2006 the coalition amended the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 to remove the position of staff elected director from the legislated composition of the ABC board to improve the corporate governance of the organisation. The decision to abolish the staff elected director was announced following the coalition government’s review of corporate governance of statutory authorities and office holders, conducted by Mr John Uhrig AC. The removal of the staff elected director was consistent with Uhrig’s recommendations about representative appointments. As I said earlier, if we are going to have a staff representative why not have a representative from the rural areas, a representative from the poorer areas, a representative from the richer areas, a representative from the female side and a representative from the male side? I mean, how far should we go with these appointments?

The Uhrig review concluded:

The review does not support representational appointments to governing boards as representational appointments can fail to produce independent and objective views. There is the potential for these appointments to be primarily concerned with the interests of those they represent—

if they are appointed by those whom they represent, of course they will wish to make sure that those feelings are expressed in the board—

rather than the success of the entity they are responsible for governing. While it is possible to manage conflicts of interest, the preferred position is to not create circumstances where they arise.

The position of staff elected director was seen as an anomaly amongst government agency boards. This is not the Liberal Party speaking; this is the Public Service. The other national broadcaster, the SBS, does not have a staff elected director. The coalition was also concerned about the potential conflict of interest of the staff elected director, who is legally required to act in the best interests of the ABC as director but is appointed as a representative of staff and elected by them. It is totally inconsistent yet again. The explanatory memorandum to the 2006 bill stated:

The Bill addresses an ongoing tension relating to the position of staff-elected Director. A potential conflict exists between the duties of the staff-elected Director under paragraph 23(1)(a) of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 to act in good faith in the best interests of the ABC, and the appointment of that Director via election by ABC staff. The election method creates a risk that a staff-elected Director will be expected by the constituents who elect him or her to place the interests of staff ahead of the interests of the ABC as a whole where they are in conflict.

The Senate held an inquiry into the legislation to remove the staff elected director in 1996. In relation to conflicts of interest, in giving evidence to the Senate committee inquiry, officers from the department confirmed the view of Uhrig to the committee:

… while it is possible to manage conflicts of interest, the preferred position is not to create circumstances where they arise.

Professor Stephen Bartos, Director of the National Institute for Governance, made a submission to the inquiry that stated:

… the Uhrig Report is an accurate reflection of commonly accepted practice in Australian corporate governance. In this country we have applied a model of governance that does not favour representative appointments.

And:

More broadly, staff-elected directors on a Board do represent an anomaly amongst Australian public and private sector boards in general governance terms …

At the time of the 2006 announcement, the then Chairman of the ABC, Mr Donald McDonald AO, stated that he had worked with three staff elected directors and:

Inevitably there has been a tension between the expectations placed by others on their role and their established duties as directors of a corporation.

In further evidence to the Senate committee inquiry, the department told the committee:

… the issue is not really about what may or may not have happened in relation to individual directors in the past. The issue is one of what is best practice corporate governance for the ABC, and Uhrig has recommended that there should not be positions like this on government boards.

The 2006 Senate committee concluded:

This Bill aligns the operations of the ABC Board with modern principles of corporate governance and accountability, as explained in the Uhrig Review. By abolishing the position of staff-elected Director, the Bill resolves the potential conflict of interest in being under a legal duty to act in good faith and in the best interests of the ABC, whilst at the same time being expected by those that have elected them (i.e. ABC staff) to primarily represent and act in their best interests.

Labor have given us no reason to believe that they are genuine about removing the apparent political interference on national broadcasting boards. The coalition remains opposed to the reinstatement of staff elected directors, in particular to the ABC board. If the coalition’s amendments to this bill are not successful we cannot support the bill. (Time expired)

Chris Trevor (Flynn, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the National Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill 2009, and I do so very proudly as, with its introduction and passing, the Labor government will deliver on yet another promise made prior to the 2007 federal election. That promise was to free both the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service of potential political interference. The changes in the bill will achieve better long-term outcomes for both boards by improving governance in our national broadcasters.

As the situation currently stands, ABC and SBS board appointments are made by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the government of the day. This is, of course, in accordance with provisions in the ABC and SBS acts, which require the minister to write to the Governor-General recommending the appointment of a selected candidate. While there are generic criteria specified in these acts which candidates are to be assessed against prior to their appointment, there is no formal process established for appointments and absolutely no degree of transparency required in relation to how candidates are selected. This means that, while there are some generic criteria, there is no formal process to select a candidate and there is no requirement that any information be divulged as to why a candidate was selected, meaning that the government in power at the time could influence the Governor-General and subsequently appoint, ultimately at their own discretion, anyone they want to positions on the board.

This is an outrageous state of affairs. The government in power can effectively hold control over decisions of who gets appointed to the board of two major broadcasters in Australia, which effectively means that they can control two of Australia’s larger media outlets and thus a large percentage of the information consumed by the public. If the government can control who gets appointed, they can control, through the candidate they select for appointment, the portrayal of information in the media and thus control the public’s perception of events and people.

Just imagine the grisly outcome if a government chose to manipulate this situation to grasp power over their country’s national broadcasting services. It would mean a very biased skew on any issues of political interest. Despite the potential for this, when you consider that the ABC is one of the most trusted media sources in the country, it is quite daunting to think that a government could effectively control it. To prevent this potential situation I am delighted to acknowledge the good fortune we have as a government to remove the temptation to manipulate this power, which is something the Labor government committed to prior to the last federal election and something we are delivering on with this bill.

The delivery on this promise began when the government released guidelines in October 2008 pertaining to a new merit based process which was used to appoint four excellent candidates in March 2009. An independent nomination panel was convened to assess the applications and provide a short list of recommended candidates to the minister from an exceptional field of over 300 applicants from across the community. With so many applicants the quality of the appointments increased, resulting in four exceptional new directors; two each for the ABC and SBS. This practice run of the new merit based selection process showed that, by using the new model, better quality directors can be appointed and that the nomination panel can work effectively and independently of the government for the short list process.

This bill will formalise this new merit based selection process and will fulfil two very important and longstanding commitments made by the Australian Labor Party. It will effectively end potential political interference in the ABC by introducing legislation that formalises a new transparent and democratic board appointment process in which non-executive directors are appointed on the basis of merit. It is important to note that it will change the system to allow people to be appointed on the basis of merit. In any system, merit is the most effective tool that can be employed to ensure a fair and unbiased outcome. It allows the most deserving person to be given the position and completely eliminates the influence of any parties looking out for their own interests. Appointments to the SBS board will be handled in the same way and the staff elected director will be restored to the ABC board.

To remove the potential for political interference by way of appointment on the basis of merit this bill will introduce a number of provisions. It will formalise a new merit based appointment process in the legislation of both ABC and SBS and ensure it is used consistently to fill all future non-executive director vacancies, free of control of the government in power at the time. Under the bill the new process will ensure that all non-executive director vacancies on the ABC and SBS boards be advertised widely. This will include, at a minimum, advertisement in the national press and/or in major state and territory newspapers. It will also be a requirement for it to be advertised on the website of the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy.

An independent nomination panel will be established to short-list suitable candidates, free of government influence, with its role being to invite written applications by persons seeking to be appointed as a director of either the ABC or SBS board and to conduct the merit based assessment process for all applicants against the selection criteria. Under the legislation the panel will be appointed by the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and will have the processes for its operation dictated by this legislation, which specifically states that the panel is not subject to direction by the government.

The selection criteria will be solely merit based, with the assessment of candidates being made against a core set of published selection criteria which can be, where necessary to address particular skill gaps, supplemented by additional criteria. After the selection criteria have been applied, the nomination panel will provide a report to the minister with a short list of a minimum of three candidates for each vacant position. As specified under the ABC and SBS acts the minister will then select a candidate from the short list and write to the Governor-General recommending the appointment. If the government fails to appoint a short listed candidate, they must provide reasons to the parliament in explanation of their decision.

The appointment of current or former politicians or senior political staff will be strictly prohibited. If the vacancy is that of the chair of the ABC board, all aspects of the merit based process would be applied in the same manner as they would to any other position, except the Prime Minister would, in conjunction and consultation with the minister, select the preferred candidate. The Prime Minister would then confer with cabinet about the selected candidate and, once having achieved cabinet approval, would consult with the opposition leader before providing a recommendation to the Governor-General.

By introducing these provisions, we can ensure the appointments of non-executive directors are merit based and free of all potential bias and government influence. This will encourage the growth of strong and independent national broadcasters, which are the essential pillars of our democracy. It is incumbent upon the ABC and SBS boards to be able to respond to the challenges and opportunities of the emerging digital and online environment. To this end, both organisations must have transparent and accountable governance processes. Transparency of a merit based system ensures that appropriate and deserving candidates are appointed to positions on the ABC and SBS boards, which is vital if they are to function effectively. The ABC and SBS cannot function at their maximum capacity without first-rate boards.

By opening up the application process to all Australians and allowing them to nominate for a place on either the ABC or the SBS board, more eligible candidates can be considered based on their merits, and more skills can be presented for selection. The merit based selection process will primarily consider their abilities, experience and qualities as the focus of these considerations. The merit assessment will be based on matching the candidates’ skills to the needs of the ABC and SBS which, combined with transparency of independent scrutiny by the nomination panel, will allow the most appropriate candidates to be appointed.

The merit based selection process promotes the principles of equal opportunity, and gender and geographical diversity. Potential bias will no longer have a place in the selection of candidates. Appointment will depend solely on the merit of the individual candidates and how effectively they match the needs of the ABC and SBS. This system will take politics out of the selection process and put the focus on what should be the priority: ensuring the best candidates are appointed to the boards.

Another important amendment this bill will make is the reinstatement of a staff elected director on the ABC board. By reinstating the position of a staff elected director, which was abolished by the previous government, we can effectively enhance the governance arrangements on the ABC board. The position of staff elected director is vital as an important enhancement to the ABC’s independence as it provides a unique and keen insight into ABC operations. More often than not, the staff elected director is the only member of the board that has the expertise and first-hand knowledge to question the advice coming from the ABC’s executives. The staff elected director is in the best position to critically examine the advice from the executives because of their knowledge of the daily operations of the broadcaster. Despite the fact that their actual duties, rights and responsibilities are the same, the process by which they are appointed provides a fundamental difference and gives them unique knowledge and experience that they can bring to the board to assist with the critical task of ensuring the ABC can operate at its maximum capacity. The reinstatement of this position is good news for the ABC as it means important insight can be added to the pool of knowledge held by the board of directors.

The changes introduced by this bill will formalise a system that has proven to be effective and will reintroduce the position of staff elected director, a position that has been proven in the past in that it brings important knowledge and experience to the board of directors. For regional areas such as my electorate of Flynn, where the ABC is a highly respected source for information about contemporary issues and events, the integrity of our national broadcasting service is fundamental. In Flynn, the ABC is very much a part of the community with local offices in Longreach and Gladstone, to which the people of Flynn look to first for information, in good times and in bad. When there is a natural disaster it is the ABC or other local media outlets that people from my community look to for updates and vital information—a service that is absolutely critical in potentially life or death situations such as cyclones and bushfires. This bill will ensure that both the ABC and SBS cannot be abused and that the integrity that makes them the first port of call for information in regional communities, such as my electorate of Flynn, can be maintained.

It would be ludicrous to deny the passing of legislation that will ensure an important part of Australia’s news and media will never be misused or abused. This bill will formalise a tried and tested system and reintroduce an important position to the board of directors, which will prevent any potential political interference and make certain that the integrity of these national broadcasting services can never be lost. It is for these reasons that I commend the National Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 to the House.

Debate interrupted.