Craig Thomson (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the National Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. This bill will amend two acts, the Australian Broadcasting Corporations Act 1983 and the Special Broadcasting Services Act 1991, to establish in legislation the new merit based appointment process for ABC and SBS non-executive directors and to reinstate the staff-elected director of the ABC board. The staff-elected director position cannot be reinstated to the ABC board until the legislation is amended.

Under the provisions of the bill: the position of staff-elected director will be restored to the ABC board; non-executive director vacancies on the ABC board and SBS board will be advertised; an independent nomination panel will shortlist suitable candidates; and there will be a clear merit based selection criteria for non-executive director positions. Where the government does not appoint a shortlisted candidate, they will have to provide reasons to parliament. The Prime Minister must consult with the Leader of the Opposition prior to recommending to the Governor-General the person to be appointed as the ABC chairperson. The appointments of current or former politicians or senior political staff will be prohibited. The government committed to these initiatives prior to the 2007 federal election. They were part of the platform that we took to that election. We are intending to honour those election promises with this legislation.

In relation to merit based appointments of non-executive directors, it is important to note that strong and independent national broadcasters are an essential pillar in our democracy. It is incumbent on the ABC board and the SBS board to be able to respond to the challenges and opportunities of the emerging digital and online environments. To this end, both organisations must have transparent and accountable governance processes. 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 board or the SBS board and that 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. 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 ultimate responsibility for appointments remains with the minister.

This bill reinstates the role of the staff-elected director, which will further enhance the governance arrangements on the ABC board. The position of staff-elected director is an important enhancement of the ABC’s independence, 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.

The changes to the board process are needed to ensure the future independence of both boards as media technology evolves. For too long the process of appointing directors to the ABC and SBS boards has been open to political interference. It is time to restore the independence. The new appointment process will ensure that all future appointments to the ABC and SBS boards are conducted in a manner that fosters independence, transparency, accountability and public confidence. Former politicians and political staffers will not be eligible to apply and, to make it clear that the government is serious about independence and balance, the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition will have a hand in deciding the appointment of the boards’ chairs.

When the changes were publicly proposed in a discussion paper last year, the ABC’s then most recent staff-elected director welcomed the government’s decision to reinstate the role, saying it was vital to the independence of the public broadcaster. Broadcaster and journalist Quentin Dempster said at the time that the ABC audience would be better served by board members who were not appointed on the basis of politics. That is important, because that is why the national broadcasters are there—for their audiences. We need to make sure that their independence is an essential part of Australian viewing. Mr Dempster said:

We’re really looking forward to seeing that merit selection comes through and the public gets an understanding that they as taxpayers are the ones who own the ABC, not the staff, not the Labor Party or the Liberal Party.

One of my staff is himself a former journalist who worked with one of the two national broadcasters, and he recognises the importance of independence. He tells me of the times when there was strong solidarity within the staff ranks of the TV and radio stations of the ABC and SBS while either was having a dispute with management and/or the board over political appointments or the question of staff-elected directors. To come to work every day in the knowledge that somewhere at the top of a national broadcaster’s food chain there was the possibility that a story or program could be interfered with because of an executive decision made with one political bias or another was a very disturbing feeling for many a working journalist, editor or programmer.

In a dramatic example of how circumstances can turn, that same staff member of mine was once a part of the media in the Pacific Island country of Fiji. Fiji, as many of the members here know, no longer has an independent media. The newspapers, radio and television in that popular destination for Australian tourists have virtually been shut down by the country’s military leader. It is probably true to say that Fiji’s national broadcaster was never as strong and independent as ours, but now any independence ever enjoyed by the media over there has virtually been put aside. Thankfully, the chances of that ever happening in Australia are practically impossible. And through this legislation I am speaking on today, any threats to the integrity of the independence, transparency, accountability and public confidence of the two national broadcasters will be no longer.

The ABC and the SBS are both recognised throughout the world as quality program makers. The current affairs segments and hard-hitting documentaries of both have at various times had major impacts on the lives of not only public affair conscious Australians but also on people in various other countries. These programs have also been screened on some of the world’s leading in-depth news and current affairs channels operated by the likes of the BBC and ITV. And the growing popularity of travel documentaries and lifestyle shows, especially when they involve food, is ever so evident. Our national broadcasters have had a major hand in these new brands of reality TV shows.

But the traditional world of broadcasting as we know it is changing and changing rapidly. Increasingly the digital age is determining how we receive our daily doses of news and current affairs and other programs. These programs themselves are converging and finding more and more niche audiences, and the audiences are trying out new ways to catch up with the world around them on their portable screens and mobile phones or they are investing in higher quality TV sets at home or increasingly turning to their computer screens to update themselves. And while they can more easily see what is going on in the world, there will more demand for services like news and weather to be focused on their local areas.

The wider range of viewing and listening equipment demands programs that are technically superior. That is why this country needs to update, why we need to truly enter the 21st century of communications, and our two national broadcasters will play a major part in the future of digital broadcasting through a far better broadband network. The National Broadband Network will be the single largest infrastructure investment made by an Australian government. It will be a key nation-building project, stimulating our economy, improving health and education services and connecting our cities and regional centres. The government’s $43 billion investment will deliver 90 per cent fibre-to-the-premises coverage at speeds of 100 megabits per second and the remaining coverage through state of the art wireless and satellite technologies.

A range of studies, both in Australia and from overseas, agree on the fundamental bottom line that investment in high-speed broadband leads to billions of dollars in economic benefits across the economy. The NBN is not just about delivering existing internet services to consumers. It will be an enabling platform for a range of 21st century communications, including new applications promoting health, education and energy efficiency and new innovative business applications. A range of studies both in Australia and from overseas, including from Access Economics, the Centre for International Economics and the European Commission, have converged on the view that high-speed broadband will lead to billions of dollars in economic benefits across the economy in the future.

I note Infrastructure Australia’s view in its National infrastructure priorities report, in May last year, which stated:

The importance of an accessible and fast broadband network to Australia’s international competitiveness is almost impossible to overstate.

The government is now clearly focused on the implementation of this policy. That is why the government is conducting a detailed implementation study to work through issues such as, amongst other things, operating arrangements, ownership, structure and ways to attract private sector investments. The implementation study is due early next year.

By taking a leadership role in investment in high-speed broadband, the government is positioning Australia to take advantage of the benefits of the future digital economy. The opposition, on the other hand, are all over the place on this issue. Clearly, they are very slow to move with the technology in terms of broadband, let alone party unity on these issues. What we hear from the opposition is that, first of all, they criticise us for moving too slowly and then they want to reopen the debate about the technology. They have had an opportunity. They had 11½ years to look at what direction they wanted to take. What did we get in those 11½ years? Eighteen failed broadband policies—that is right: 18 different policies when they were in government but not one concrete step forward into the digital economy.

The opposition clearly failed in the past on the digital revolution. They clearly have no plan for the future on this and they should be supporting the government’s role and initiative in the rollout of the NBN. It is the way to go for Australia. It will lead to greater economic benefits for the Australian people and it is something that should be bipartisan. Unfortunately, getting a single position from an opposition that takes multiple positions on almost every issue is very, very difficult.

In terms of international comparisons, the most recent OECD statistics indicate that Australia is in the bottom half of OECD countries in broadband take-up. We are 16th out of 30 countries. Australians pay more for broadband than most OECD countries. We are 20th out of 29 countries. For average monthly subscription prices, Australia is the fourth most expensive for slow speed connections and the fifth most expensive for medium-speed connections. These are important facts that were before the previous government but again they failed to act on them. They failed to make broadband accessible to the vast majority of Australians. They failed to look at technology that would make it available at a much reduced price.

On the other hand, this government is investing $250 million to roll out fibre-optic backbone links connecting cities, major regional centres and rural towns. The first six priority locations for initial investments are Geraldton, Darwin, Emerald and Longreach, Broken Hill, Victor Harbor and the south-west Gippsland region. Tasmania was to be the first state to receive these services, and that has already occurred. On 21 October the Prime Minister and the Tasmanian Premier announced stage 2 of the NBN rollout in Tasmania. The centres of Smithton, Scottsdale and Midway Point will be the first to receive optical fibre broadband connections under the National Broadband Network rollout.

The NBN coverage of rural areas is important for all Australians. It means being able to connect and making sure that Australians get access and that 98 per cent are covered under this important commitment we made before the last election. The remaining 10 per cent of homes and businesses will receive next generation wireless and satellite technology that will deliver them broadband speed.

Clearly, the future of the two national broadcasters, the ABC and the SBS, depends a great deal on how the government supports them. We support them through major investment in technology infrastructure and we are putting in place the foundations of a future of continued high-quality and independent national broadcasting in this country. This particular bill makes sure that both SBS and the ABC are able to have transparent management structures, merit based appointments and the reinstatement of the staff-elected director. It is a good thing that this government continues to support, both in the technology and in their structures, the boards of both the ABC and SBS. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Madam Deputy Speaker Vale, I thank you for being such a wonderful colleague over so many years as a member of the class of ‘96. There is a quaint title on this bill, the National Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. As is so often the case with bills in this place that have these quaint titles, you would have no idea of what it is really about, what it might do and the dangers lurking in the legislation. It is right that there is a debate in the parliament, and this side of the House suggests that there could be ways that the government could improve the legislation—or that the legislation should not be passed at all.

It was back in 2006 in the time of the Howard government that an effort was made by the then government to improve the corporate governance of the ABC. Many of us have had views about the ABC and its role within Australia and whether or not it fulfils its mission and objectives. Those views have often been substantially correct. There are parts of the ABC about which members of parliament are very unhappy; other parts of it shine—for example, the ABC newsroom in Townsville. It is the most professional newsroom that we have in the north. It is terrific to be able to say that our national broadcaster has the most professional news service of any of the media outlets in North Queensland. Congratulations to the people in the ABC newsroom in Townsville for the work they do and the way that they accurately and impartially report the news. At the end of the day, that is the mission of the ABC: to be accurate and impartial. You cannot say that about certain other sections of the ABC nor can you say it about certain other sections of the Australian media. From time to time, we have all seen glaring examples of that. I will shortly make some more observations in relation to that.

The reason I raise this is to lay out my views on this bill. The coalition amended the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 to remove the staff-elected position from the ABC board. The rationale for the removal of the staff-elected position was that it was inconsistent with other government agency boards and inconsistent with the Uhrig review of corporate governance, statutory authorities and officeholders. 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.

In other words, expressed simply, there would be a conflict of interest.

In the face of an independent review with a very powerful and logical conclusion, I fail to see how the government can come back to the parliament and say, ‘We intend to reinstate a staff director on the ABC.’ This is basically pressure from the unions on the government. There can be no other explanation as to why the government would put such a foolish piece of legislation before the parliament today. Any fair-minded person could immediately see the conflict of interest of having a staff member on the board of the ABC. They could see the threat to proper governance of the organisation. It does not happen in other statutory bodies. It does not happen in the private sector. Yet the ABC is singled out, and of course SBS too, for this rather special situation.

We all know the various problems that the ABC have had in relation to objectively reporting the news. We know that so often material is produced on the seven o’clock nightly news program which is presented as news but is actually editorial opinion in the way that it is presented. That is wrong. There is nothing wrong with editorial opinion provided that it is presented as such. The 7.30 Report is basically an editorial opinion slot. To present editorial opinion as news is wrong. The ABC board needs to be strong enough to be able to address that particular situation. How can it be strong enough if a staff member is on the board? What is the staff member’s view going to be? Obviously, the staff member is going to side with the staff and their political views are going to prevail. The ABC was designed to be an independent broadcaster with a mission that the Australian people want to see fulfilled.

The clause in this bill that seeks to reinstate the staff-elected director position to the ABC board is simply creating a conflict of interest. It undermines the system of checks and balances that exists within the ABC. There is no need to introduce an inherent risk that could pose a conflict of interest. The idea of reinstating a staff-elected position is nothing more than a move by the government to please the unions at the ABC. Since the election of the Rudd government, all of us have seen the power and influence of the union movement. More importantly, we have also seen the misuse of that power and influence. Look at what is going on in the north of Western Australia right now: $50,000 a year salary increases for no productivity gain—for nothing in return. How can that be justified? How can the government condone such an outcome when they talk continually about improving Australia’s productivity? Of course they cannot, but they do. Here we go again: the power of the unions getting the government to put in place something that is not in the best interests of Australia or its people.

ABC directors, including the staff-elected member, are legally bound to put the interests of the ABC first and foremost. The role of the staff-elected board member is to represent ABC staff at board level. What will happen when the overall interests of the ABC differ from the interests of the ABC staff? What will happen if there is a pay dispute between ABC staff and the board? The staff-elected member will be placed in a predicament whatever way they vote, and they will not be performing their duty as required by the normal governance rules of boards in Australia today.

It is my strong view that the minister has got it wrong again. According to Senator Conroy, this is not an inherent conflict of interest. I do not know what the minister’s definition of ‘conflict of interest’ is but it differs from all other conventional meanings and it differs from what ordinary Australians would see as the definition of ‘conflict of interest’. The SBS does not have a staff-elected member on the SBS board, yet the government only wants to introduce one to the ABC board. There should not be any staff-elected member on the ABC board—or the SBS board, for that matter.

This legislation also bans former politicians and senior political staff from being appointed to the boards of the SBS or the ABC. This is not a sensible move as it locks out a valuable resource for these boards, that being former politicians and senior political staff. These people have a wealth of knowledge and experience in dealing with government, legislation, representation, governance, management and public accountability. I believe it is not appropriate to single out former members of parliament or their senior staff to be excluded in this way.

I also believe that it is not appropriate for this class of people to be appointed immediately after they have left the parliament or the public service. I, along with the opposition, am of the opinion that there should be an 18-month cooling-off period for former MPs, senators and senior staff before they become eligible to be appointed to the boards of the ABC or SBS. That does not mean to say that any will be appointed—there is a merit selection process—but they should not be excluded either.

It is hypocritical of the government to appoint former politicians and senior political staff to some boards but not to the boards of the ABC or SBS. Clearly one approach is at odds with the other. It is unfair to deny the SBS and the ABC access to the valuable skills and experience that these people possess. Certainly former members have made an important and valuable contribution to the board of the ABC and to other government bodies, but, of course, they have also made important contributions, and still do, to boards of many public companies in this country today. In fact, in 1994 the Labor government appointed former South Australian Labor Premier John Bannon to the ABC board. In more recent times, we have seen Mr Rudd appoint John Kerin to the CSIRO and Steve Bracks as an adviser for the car industry. There is ample precedent to show that these appointments are valuable and useful appointments. So why the government would present this proposal to the parliament today mystifies me. It just goes against common sense. It defies logic, as does the reinstatement of a staff-elected board member position.

I would like to finish with an observation in relation to something I said earlier in my contribution to the debate on the motion on truthfulness in the media. More and more, particularly in the print media, we see sensationalism being presented as news. It gets to the stage where you have to say, ‘You can’t believe anything you read in the newspaper any longer.’ That is not true of some of our quality publications. The great newspapers of this country strive to produce an honest reporting of the facts, but then there are those which strive to maximise circulation by being sensational with no regard for the facts.

I would point out today’s Townsville Bulletin, which has a story about a long-running issue in the Coronary Care Unit of the Townsville Hospital. It involves a doctor who was stood down and the government being forced to reinstate that doctor. The story was misleading and the impression that it left with the reader was entirely untrue. It is a shame that readers in Townsville are left in the situation of no longer being able to believe what they read on the front page of the Townsville Bulletin.

I remember an instance last year, when the city council was looking at some significant rate rises because the former Labor council had so badly affected the finances of the council. In March last year, the Townsville Bulletin reported on its front page that ‘the rate rise for Townsville City Council ratepayers will be’—note that it said ‘will be’—‘nine per cent this year.’ The budget was not due to be brought down until June, so I rang the general manager of the paper and I said, ‘How could you report that the rate rise will be nine per cent when the council has not even formulated its budget yet?’ The response was, ‘Well, we’ve got good information from inside the council.’ The damage was done, because the rate rise was, from memory, 6.7 per cent. It was not determined until quite late in the piece, but the readers in Townsville were completely misled.

I also suffered at the hands of the Townsville Bulletin. There was a front-page story: ‘Member takes a study trip estimated to cost the Australian taxpayer $100,000’. I rang the editor and I said, ‘Well, that is news to me; where did you get $100,000?’ He said, ‘Oh, we tossed it around and we estimated that’s what the cost would be.’ The cost to the taxpayer was $15,000 and, incidentally, I personally put in $17,000 myself on that trip, but there was no mention of that. There was just the sensationalist ‘$100,000 the member slugged the taxpayers of Australia’. That kind of reporting has to stop. The print media in this country have to accept more responsibility than they currently accept and the residents of Townsville have to be able to believe what they read on the front page of the Townsville Bulletin.

I am reminded also of a Defence example—which you will understand, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott. There was claim made by the Townsville Bulletin that 3,000 marines from Japan were going to be based in Townsville. There was not a skerrick of fact in that front-page story. The Department of Defence had not even heard about the prospect, yet it was reported that 3,000 marines were going to be based in Townsville. That kind of reporting has got to stop and we have to see better standards of reporting and professionalism in our Australian media.

That brings me back to the ABC and this bill. The board of the ABC—and SBS, but particularly the ABC—has got to be a strong, impartial, unbiased, quality board that has no conflicts of interest whatsoever so that the board can exercise its authority and direct the standards that it wants within our great national broadcaster. I utterly reject the proposition that is being put in this bill, and I will vote accordingly.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the National Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. It reflects the fulfilment of a longstanding commitment on the part of the Australian Labor Party to ensure the independence of the ABC and SBS, the two national broadcasters. It is a commitment that Labor has been repeating for a very long time and it is a commitment that Labor has expressed many times in the face of attacks on the independence of the ABC and SBS by the former government.

The bill establishes a new and transparent appointments process for the ABC and SBS, and it reinstates the staff-elected director to the ABC board—which is the matter that the member for Herbert has just been expressing such indignation about. The staff-elected director of the ABC was, of course, abolished by the former government in the face of a great deal of well-founded community opposition.

The appointments process is important. Through a transparent appointments process can be understood the steps that are taken to make appointments to the board of the ABC and the board of SBS. With that level of transparency, it is possible to establish the true independence of these boards and the independence of these very important taxpayer-funded broadcasting organisations. The problem that the community encounters if the process is not transparent, is not able to be externally assessed and checked, is that able, diligent and expert board members—people who are making a very important contribution to the management of these two organisations—can be tarnished if there is an accusation that their appointments have in some way been ideologically driven or partisan. I make the point that, whether or not there is any substance to such accusations of partisan appointment, a perception that the appointment of a particular board member has been produced by some partisan and ideologically-driven process is a very important one. Perception matters greatly in this area of public administration, not least because public funds are being used by the ABC and SBS to provide information to the community. Of course, part of the activities of the ABC and SBS are inevitably and rightly concerned with broadcasting news about politics and affairs of the nation and with broadcasting commentary about the affairs of the nation. It is for that reason that it is so important to maintain the perception that the appointment of the people at the very peak of these two publicly-funded organisations has been achieved without partisan involvement.

The procedure that is provided in this bill will ensure not just that there are merit based appointments of future directors to the ABC board but also that those appointments will be seen to be independent and non-partisan appointments. The fact of the matter is that neither the ABC or SBS is able to function to the capacity that we would expect of them without excellent boards. It is important that there be expert, able and interested people serving on these boards and that, having been appointed, they do not have to undergo the potentially unfair criticism that their appointment has been achieved by some partisan involvement.

The features of the process, at their core, are that the assessment of applicants for board positions in future will be undertaken by an independent nomination panel that is to be established at arm’s length from the government. Vacancies are to be widely advertised, at a minimum in the national press. The assessment of candidates is to be made according to a core set of published selection criteria. Again, what you have there is the achievement of a degree of transparency, because the criteria to be applied in the selection of candidates by the independent panel will be publicly known. That nomination panel is to provide a report to the minister with a short list of at least three candidates for each vacant position. The minister selects a candidate and writes to the Governor-General recommending the appointment, as is required under these two pieces of legislation, the ABC and SBS acts. As well—and this is, again, in accordance with a commitment that the Australian Labor Party made at the last election—the appointment of current or former politicians or senior political staff will be prohibited.

What is made clear from that process is that the process which is now to be included in the legislation is one by which the process of appointment will be seen to be a transparent one. Where the vacancy is for the chair of the ABC Board, the selection process will follow all of the aspects I have just outlined of this merit selection process as it applies to non-executive board appointments, except that in the case of the Chair of the ABC Board the Prime Minister would select the preferred candidate in consultation with the minister. There would then be conferring with cabinet and, following cabinet approval, a consultation with the Leader of the Opposition before making a recommendation to the Governor-General. That is an appropriate additional check and balance in respect of the very important position of the Chair of the ABC Board and, again, achieves a level of transparency and of accountability and will do a great deal to ensure that the perception of independence of the appointment process for these two boards, the ABC and SBS boards, is maintained.

As was announced by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy, in late 2008, the process contained in this legislation, in advance of its passage, was followed by the government in making the appointments last year to both the ABC Board, where two appointments were made, and the SBS Board, where, again, two appointments were made. It was open to the government to adopt these new processes, which involved the appointment of a nomination panel to assess applications in accordance with a stated and publicly known set of criteria, the nomination panel making recommendations to the minister and, at that point, the appointments being made.

It should come as no surprise that, as a consequence of the adoption administratively by the government of that independent process—the one that is now to be contained in legislation to guide future appointments—the appointments which were announced in April of last year were welcomed. Not only were the appointments greeted with praise for the very high quality and, indeed, eminence of the new non-executive directors—Mr Michael Lynch and Dr Julianne Schultz to the ABC and Ms Elleni Bereded-Samuel and Mr Joseph Skrzynski as non-executive directors to the board of SBS—but, because the government had adopted a more transparent selection process for the directors of the ABC and the SBS, their appointment was met with, happily, very little, if any, criticism directed at what would have been an entirely false accusation that there was any partisanship at all in the process of their appointment.

Probably representative of the high praise with which the appointments of these four people to the ABC and SBS boards, respectively, were greeted was the editorial appearing in the Melbourne Age on 2 April last year. I will quote some of that editorial because, as I say, it was representative of the manner in which these appointments were greeted. I suggest that the appointments were greeted in this way because of the adoption of this more transparent process. The Age editorial writer said:

THE two new members of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Board, arts administrator Michael Lynch and publisher Julianne Schultz, are the first to be appointed under the Government’s new, more transparent selection process for directors of the ABC and SBS. The new process involved advertising of board positions and a five-month vetting system that considered more than 350 applications (former politicians and senior political staff are ineligible), whittled to 25, then a panel review that submitted to the Government a short list of seven for each board.

Although conspiracy theorists will no doubt try to find political undercurrents, there can be no doubt that the collective experience and expertise of Mr Lynch and Dr Schultz outweighs any ideologies either person might or might not necessarily possess. This has not, of course, been the case with such ultra-conservative appointees as columnist Janet Albrechtsen and historian and editor Keith Windschuttle, whose presence on the ABC board is a legacy of the former Howard government.

The editorial writer went on to say:

Although it will take time for the new system to have a full effect, it at least represents an encouraging start that augurs well for the future of national broadcasting—

and they go on to comment favourably about the distinguished careers of the appointees. The new process of appointment that is provided in this legislation is an entirely appropriate step to restoring and ensuring for the future the independence of the ABC and SBS. It is important, of course, that both boards be in a position to attract the best possible appointees in order to ensure that the governance of these two important public institutions continues to be undertaken as well as it can possibly be.

The other matter which this legislation deals with is the restoration of the staff elected director. The abolition of this position by the former government was, of course, something that the former government did not take to the election in 2004. Nothing was said about the abolition of the staff elected director. Upon being re-elected in 2004 and obtaining control of the Senate from 1 July 2005, the former government was able to embark on a whole range of attacks on longstanding Australian institutions not the least of which was their attack on the Australian industrial relations system in the form of Work Choices, but what we saw in the case of the ABC was the attack on its independence with the abolition of the position of staff elected director.

We have heard again just from the previous speaker, the member for Herbert, the repetition of the complete myth that the Uhrig report, which dealt with Commonwealth corporations, that lengthy report in some way supported the abolition of the position of staff elected director to the ABC. The problem with the repetition of that statement is that the Uhrig review did not look at staff elected appointments. The citing of the Uhrig review was not a basis back then and is not a basis now for the argument that is being advanced that there is some problem with having a staff elected director.

Staff elected directors are well known in many developed economies. As this legislation in combination with the legislation that governs the ABC board makes entirely clear, there will be no possibility of an unmanageable conflict of interest for the staff elected director for the simple reason—and it is a simple reason—that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is a Commonwealth authority. It is a Commonwealth authority governed by the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 and that act makes clear that officers being directors and senior managers of Commonwealth authorities owe duties of due care and of diligence, a duty to act in good faith in the interests of the Commonwealth authority, as well as not to improperly use their position to gain an advantage to themselves or anyone else or to cause detriment to the Commonwealth authority. In that context the provisions that do now apply and will continue to apply to all directors of the ABC and SBS will ensure that there is nothing in the legislation nor could there be that makes the duties of the staff elected director different to those of the other non-executive directors on the board of the ABC.

The arguments that are continuing to be advanced by those opposite that there is some problem about the staff elected director position simply show their desire to, on an ongoing basis, attack the independence of this very important government funded organisation. There is a long, trouble-free record for the staff elected director of the ABC. This was a position that was created in 1983 and continued without difficulty through to the abolition of the position by the former government. There is no suggestion of a conflict of interest. There is no suggestion that the staff director will do other than understand fully the obligations that the staff elected director will owe to the corporation that she or he will be a director of. The position will ensure that if for some reason the board is not as fully aware of the interests of those who work at the ABC as it should be, the staff elected director can make absolutely clear to the other members of the board exactly how important those staff concerns are.

Finally, I want to say something about how the attacks on the ABC that we saw during the course of the former government are to be deplored. They are to be deplored because those opposite fail to recognise on a continuing basis the important role that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the SBS play in our Australian democracy. They play that role because they provide to the Australian people, free of commercial interests, the news and commentary that we have come to expect at the standard which we have come to expect from our independent national broadcasters.

The ABC is a vital Australian institution. We need to defend the ABC against the attacks of those opposite, against the attacks of commercial corporations who have an interest in limiting the activities of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and SBS, who are direct competitors and through their own news outlets are continuing to mount an attack on the ABC. As recently as Monday of this week we read in the Murdoch owned newspaper, the News Limited owned newspaper, the Australian, an attack by a commentator on the proposal by the ABC to embark on a new 24-hour, seven-day a week television news channel. The proposition expressed by this commentator was that the private and commercial broadcasters in this country could fully fulfil the role—(Time expired)

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The National Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 is a perfect Labor bill to go into question time with. It is a bill about three things: union power, union power and union power. That is all this is about. There is nothing wrong with the ABC; this is a bill about union power. The one reform the ABC wants is for this Prime Minister to appear on Insiders just once this year. He is on Sunrise every week but he spends no time on Insiders. We need to see him on Insiders. That is the reform the ABC wants.

This bill is about union power. As we see with workplace relations, as we see with this bill before the parliament, this is about union power first, second and third. They are coming back. Eighty-five per cent of senior frontbenchers were union officials. This bill is about union power. The ABC has never performed so well. We are seeing the situation of Pluto at the moment in WA; we are seeing the country being shut down. We will see in the economic statement which we are about to hear from the Prime Minister about union power. This bill, one, two and three, is about union power.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.