Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment Bill 2006 is nothing more than a continuation of the standard Howard government attack on our public broadcaster. The explanation for the bill is simply what we have come to expect from this government and its attack on the ABC. The excuse that the government gives for this new manipulation of the ABC’s board is that a potential conflict of interest exists in the duties of the staff-elected director, basically because they are elected rather than appointed to their position.

The minister announced the move by the government to impose this change during the Commonwealth Games. The existence of the position of staff-elected director to the board provides for the presence of staff expertise on the board. This staff-elected director gives the ABC board a vital insight into the day-to-day operations of our national broadcaster. Interestingly enough, in the 2001 report of the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee entitledMethods of appointment to the ABC board, in response to a recommendation, government senators stated:

There has been no suggestion that the position of the staff-elected director will be abolished.

Now the government has changed its mind. It changed it with the Senate majority.

The basis for the government’s logic in this theory of doing away with the position comes from their loose interpretation of the Uhrig review, which suggests that representational appointments to boards carry a risk. This is where Senator Coonan just does not get it. The position is elected by the ABC staff. The position is occupied by a member of the ABC staff. But it is not a position that represents the individual concerns of ABC staff. The staff-elected board members know this. Current and former directors stated it on record during the recent Senate inquiry. The directors know that they are there to serve the best interests of the ABC as a collective operation.

The government also relies heavily on the submission of Professor Stephen Bartos, yet Professor Bartos did not exactly tell the government what they wanted to hear either. If anything, his submission encouraged the position. He claims that ‘the choice of model to be adopted for a public sector body should not be static or formulaic’—it should not be standard or rigid. Professor Bartos adds to this by saying that public bodies should be ‘driven by the objectives of the organisation concerned’. In simple terms, he is saying that a unique organisation such as the ABC is benefited by having a wide-ranging composition of professionals on its board of directors.

The staff-elected director on the board of the ABC brings broadcasting experience to a select group which oversees the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The staff elect this person from among their peers because they are highly skilled, with a significant broadcasting knowledge base. They do not elect them on the basis that they will take all the individual problems of the staff to other members of the board. That is simply not their role. Senators opposite dismiss this and do not believe it to be important.

They seem to think that if the board is not sure about a decision relating to broadcasting then they will just outsource the question: ‘Ask an expert. Call in a consultant.’ How are the board members supposed to know what is relevant and what is not if they do not have the broadcasting knowledge? If they do not have an understanding of the day-to-day operational requirements of our national broadcaster, how are they to know when they should be consulting an expert? How do they know the questions they should be asking when they do not have the current knowledge of broadcasting that the staff-elected director brings to the board? We have, for our benefit, an example of just such a situation.

In submissions to the committee inquiry into this bill, there were a number of examples of the benefits that the staff-elected director position creates. Of particular note was a submission from the immediate past president of Friends of the ABC South Australia, Mr Darce Cassidy. Mr Cassidy worked for the ABC for 33 years, with his last position being that of managing director’s representative for South Australia. He highlighted an example where a former staff-elected director, Mr Tom Molomby, who served on the board from 1983 to 1987, used his position in the best interests of the ABC even though it proved to be unpopular with the staff. Not only did Molomby not support a move that was considered popular by staff but his understanding of the operational aspects of the organisation enabled him at one of his early board meetings to raise an issue that would have otherwise been overlooked.

In the early 1980s, the ABC in Melbourne was readying itself to move to outer East Burwood. This move was very popular with many members of the ABC staff because it was close to where they lived and meant that they would only have a short trip to work each day. Mr Molomby, however, used his professional knowledge and judgment with great distinction. I would like to read an extract from Mr Molomby’s book, which is quoted in Mr Cassidy’s submission, to allow the chamber to reflect on this judgment and how it directly affected major operations within the Melbourne bureau. Mr Molomby stated:

It was in my view a wholly impractical location from which to conduct radio in particular. Traveling time from there to the most frequently required locations for interviews and research would be enormous, and some outsiders would be reluctant to come so far …

He went on to say:

I outlined my reservations briefly to the Board and they agreed with me immediately … it seems to me that the only possible decision was in accordance with the operational interests of the organisation, bearing in mind that its effect would be of indefinite duration.

The East Burwood project was stopped, and we set about exploring locations close to the city.

Mr Molomby’s knowledge and understanding of the operational requirements of the ABC, and his foresight, saved the ABC board from making a serious mistake. Eventually, the ABC’s Melbourne operations were consolidated at Southbank, in the city. I hope that senators opposite are taking note of this, because it is fair to say that this situation probably saved the ABC—and therefore the taxpayers—millions of dollars.

That staff-elected director used his broadcasting knowledge and understanding of the ABC and saved probably millions of dollars for Australian taxpayers. What logic: get rid of a position which has already, by its very existence, saved millions of dollars. This example from Mr Cassidy’s submission is in direct contrast with the reasons the minister has given for the abolition of the position. It is directly opposite. I will quote from the explanatory memorandum to the bill. It reads:

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 …

Yet Mr Molomby not only placed the interests of the ABC ahead of those of staff but also saved the corporation from a fiscal and logistical disaster. The explanatory memorandum, circulated by authority of the Hon. Helen Coonan, rubs more salt into the wound with its financial impact statement. It reads:

The Bill is not expected to have a significant financial impact on Commonwealth expenditure or revenue.

Well, Minister, that is not what history tells us.

If coalition senators were to read through the submissions made to the inquiry, they would see other examples of where the persons occupying the position of staff-elected directors have played significant and positive roles on the board. They would have to feel embarrassed about supporting this bill, knowing that the reason the government is putting forward for abolishing such a position is not, in reality, justified. Its reason of conflict of interest is casting a shadow over what many believe to be the real reason for the government moving to abolish the position of staff-elected director on the board—that is, that the position of staff-elected director is the one position that the government does not have control or influence over.

In the minority report of the inquiry into the bill, submitted by Labor, Greens and Democrats senators, concern was expressed about the overall state of the ABC as a collective operation. I would like to expand on this for a minute, because this is at the core of this bill’s intentions. The composition and method of appointment of the board is central to the ailments of the national broadcaster, and there are few areas left of the ABC that are not soaked in conservative bilge water. The ABC is one of the last great public institutions that has seen Australians through some of our darkest hours and united us in moments of triumph. It is a symbol of independent thought and transparency in a free society. A strong, independent media is a dying entity. The capacities, rights and strengths of genuine fourth estate journalism are in grave danger.

It was World Press Freedom Day last Thursday and the Australian Press Council used the day to air concerns about the state of the media. The chairman, Professor Ken McKinnon had this to say about the Howard government’s contempt for a free press:

During Prime Minister Howard’s regime, the Commonwealth has centralised power to an unprecedented degree and used the buzzword ‘security’ to erect a seamless protective wall around information flows.

Professor McKinnon does not exactly mince his words in his criticism, and the irony is not lost on me. The government does not care about the loose and unfounded allegations about the board’s composition. The duties of the board stipulated in section 8 of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act are quite clear about what is required from a board member.

There are nine positions on the ABC board, and they are filled by people who come from many different professional backgrounds. They all know that they are bound by the board’s protocol. It does not matter if their background is in civil and criminal law, as is the case with board member John Gallagher QC; or if they are the Chairman of Film Australia Limited, as is board member Steven Skala; or if they have a broadcasting background, like Ms Koval or the incumbent, Mr Dempster. They are all bound by the protocols, rules, directives—call them what you will; they are all bound by them. And it should be considered an asset to have a career broadcaster as part of the board structure.

During the Senate inquiry into this bill, there were a number of attacks on the integrity of the current staff-elected director. Prior to this there had been numerous other accusations about the staff-elected director by the government. If Senator Coonan had proof that any member of the ABC board was not upholding the protocols of the board, she had, and still has today, the power to remove them. If Senator Coonan believes that the current staff-elected director is in breach then she could enact section 18(1) of the ABC Act. Section 18(1) enables the Governor-General to remove—on advice from the government, of course—a misbehaving non-executive director from office. Aside from that, we all know it is relatively easy to sack people in Australia today. I do not really understand why the government need to go to the lengths of removing the entire position simply because they are not happy with the person currently tenured.

We know that is not the case, and again I state what to many is obvious. The truth is that the Howard government have introduced this bill because this is the one position on the ABC board that they cannot fill, cannot influence and cannot control. It is a simple equation really: if you cannot manipulate a board position—if you cannot fill it, if you cannot control it—what do you do? You get rid of it. That is really what this entire debate is about. It is about the Howard government’s calculated crusade to change our ABC and mould it into what they want—that is, a media outlet that will tell them what they want to hear and will not be critical of their agenda. It is a crusade that they have been waging against the broadcaster for many years now. The government have numerous fronts in this crusade; they are removing any existing traces of independent media on one front and opening up the market to those with the fattest chequebooks on the other.

I conclude by saying that the Australian Broadcasting Amendment Bill 2006 is not in the best interests of the Australian public, not in the best interests of free speech and not in the best interests of our national broadcaster. I will finish by letting the chamber reflect on the following comment by esteemed 20th century journalist Walter Lippmann:

The press is no substitute for institutions. It is like the beam of a searchlight that moves restlessly about, bringing one episode and then another out of darkness into vision. Men cannot do the work of the world by this light alone. They cannot govern society by episodes, incidents, and eruptions. It is only when they work by a steady light of their own, that the press, when it is turned upon them, reveals a situation intelligible enough for a popular decision. The theory of the free press is not that the truth will be presented completely or perfectly in any one instance but that the truth will emerge from free discussion.

Although this is a free discussion, the arrogance of this government ensures that we are seeing a narrow, ideological shadow covering the landscape. It is a shroud that is being imposed on us. The ABC Amendment Bill 2006 is another example of Howard’s way, with no redeeming features. Labor believes that there should be an open and transparent process for making appointments to the ABC board. At the present time, the staff-elected position is the one position that fulfils this criterion.