Senate debates

Tuesday, 28 March 2006

Matters of Public Importance

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

4:26 pm

Photo of Alan EgglestonAlan Eggleston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy failed to make his case in any way whatsoever that the Howard government is seeking to undermine the ABC. In fact, the Howard government is a very strong supporter of the ABC and recognises the value of its services to the community. Amongst a significant section of the population, the national broadcaster is regarded as a cherished institution. This is particularly so in rural and regional areas. It is cherished for its commitment to local news and current affairs, the quality of its news services and the general quality of its programs, particularly in country areas but also throughout this country.

This government, like its predecessors, is committed to a vibrant and independent ABC. The government has no intention of compromising this independence. Indeed, the editorial independence of the ABC is guaranteed by the ABC Act, which is something that Senator Conroy seems to have overlooked. Its fact sheet, ‘The ABC’s charter, independence and accountability’, states:

By law and convention, neither the Government nor Parliament seeks to intervene in editorial and program decisions.

The ABC Act explicitly states:

Except as provided by this section—

relating to the minister’s power to direct the broadcast of matters in the national interest—

or as expressly provided by a provision of another Act, the Corporation is not subject to direction by or on behalf of the Government of the Commonwealth.

The ABC Act charges the board of the national broadcaster with the duty of ‘maintaining the independence and integrity of the corporation’. With public funding, however, come certain obligations. Just as with any other media organisation, the government does not expect nor does it demand favourable reporting from the ABC. Nevertheless, it does expect—and it is by no means an unreasonable expectation in the context of the very significant public funding that the organisation receives—the ABC to take a fair, balanced and objective approach to its news and current affairs coverage.

In order for the ABC to meet its functions and duties under its charter, since 1997 the government has maintained its funding in real terms; whereas, by way of contrast, when Labor was last in office it continually reduced the ABC’s funding, and the ABC’s current levels of funding exceed those it had under the Labor government prior to the 1996 election. In 2005-06, the ABC will receive funding of $792.1 million, and during the 2003-06 triennium it will receive almost $2.3 billion from the Commonwealth government. In the 2004-05 budget, $4.2 million per year was also directed to the ABC in ongoing and indexed funding in order to help it meet the increasing costs of purchasing television programs.

In 2004-05, the government announced an additional $54.4 million for the ABC’s regional and local programming initiative, on top of the $71.2 million provided to the ABC in the 2001-02 budget for the National Interest Initiatives program. To assist both the ABC and the SBS to meet the additional costs associated with digital broadcasting, the coalition is continuing to deliver on its commitment to fully fund their digital transmission and distribution expenses, at a cost of over $1 billion.

Labor failed to provide the ABC with additional funding for local and regional programming. Sitting here listening to Senator Conroy one could be forgiven for thinking that this government does not have regard for the ABC. The fact is that this government has funded the significant expansion of ABC television and radio services so that more Australians have access to the ABC then ever before—hardly the actions of a government antagonistic to the ABC.

The government made an election commitment for a funding adequacy and efficiency review, following a request from the ABC board. KPMG Australia has conducted this review and its results will be considered by the government in the context of future decisions relating to the funding of the ABC. The minister has consistently stated that the ABC will not lose funding as a result of this process.

Turning to the recent announcement in relation to the restructuring of the ABC board, it certainly should not be characterised as an attack on the independence of the ABC. The decision to abolish the staff-elected director position on the ABC board represents an initiative to improve the national broadcaster’s corporate governance. The government believes that the concept of a board director elected by a particular group is an anachronism that does not accord with modern requirements for corporate governance, and is certainly not common on other Commonwealth government agency boards.

The position of a staff-elected director on the ABC board creates undue uncertainty about accountability when you bear in mind that directors are required to act in the best interests of the ABC as a whole, not just in the interests of a particular constituency. There is an inherent conflict of interest between the clear legal duty of a director to act in good faith and in the interests of the ABC, and being elected by staff who may primarily expect the staff-elected director to represent their interests rather than the interests of the ABC as a whole.

On a practical level, this has led to difficulties in respect of board confidentiality and lack of commitment to a revised board protocol that deals with handling of confidential information. The difficulties arising out of the staff-elected director position have previously been raised by departing board members and in 2004 led to the resignation from the board of Mr Maurice Newman. The abolition of the position certainly does not mean that the board and management of the ABC will not take employee interests into account, but there are ways of doing this without having a specific staff-elected position on the board. In particular, the Managing Director of the ABC, who is a full member of the board, is more than capable of making employee interests known to the board.

The government does not support advertising on the ABC in the 2006-09 triennium. It will be up to the ABC board in the future to consider whether to approach the government about advertising on the ABC, and the government would need to be persuaded to make the necessary legislative amendments that would permit this. In doing this, the government would need to consider if advertising would be consistent with the ABC’s charter, as well as its impact on commercial broadcasters. I have to say that I do not think Senator Conroy has made his case at all that the Howard government has sought to undermine the ABC. To the contrary, I think the case has been made that the government has consistently supported the ABC and will continue to do so in recognition of the great service it provides to the Australian community.

Comments

No comments