Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment Bill 2006. The government’s proposed amendments to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act to abolish the position of staff-elected director are squarely aimed at improving the effective functioning of the ABC board and not at reducing the independence of the ABC. The key editorial principles that form part of the ABC Editorial policies will not change: honesty, fairness, respect and independence. To quote from the ABC Editorial policies:

Independence demands that program makers not allow their judgement to be influenced by pressures from political, commercial or other sectional interests, or by their own personal views or activities. There must be no external interference in the presentation or content of programs.

Abolishing the position of staff-elected director will not change how the independence of the ABC is maintained. The board position of managing director is not appointed by the government, and that will not change. The other national broadcaster, SBS, does not have a staff-elected director. That has not caused any concern about its independence. The Senate inquiry into this amendment also heard that another Australasian broadcaster, Television New Zealand, does not have a staff-elected director. Furthermore, the ABC in the past has not had a staff-elected director. For the first 40 years of its history the ABC did not have a staff-elected director and there was also no staff-elected director in the late seventies and early eighties. Critics of the abolition of the position of staff-elected director have not been able to produce any tangible evidence that this sensible step will diminish the independence of the ABC. Those critics are, quite simply, looking at the issue in the wrong way.

This decision has been taken because of concerns about the effective functioning of the ABC board. This is about the modern requirements for corporate governance. The ABC will not become any less independent because the government makes improvements to the board structure and the effective functioning of the board. The requirement for the ABC to be independent will remain in its charter and in its Editorial policies, as it should. An independent ABC is an important cultural institution in Australia. Indeed, the ABC board is required by law to maintain the independence and integrity of the corporation.

The proposed change will address an ongoing tension that has existed about the accountability of the staff-elected director. The difficulties arising from the position of staff-elected director have, in the past, been raised by departing board members. I note that one of those former board members has strongly supported this move by the government. The change is consistent with good corporate governance and the recommendations of the Uhrig review, which found that it was not in the interests of an effective and efficient board to have representative directors. That finding was also supported by a submission to the Senate inquiry by Professor Stephen Bartos from the National Institute for Governance. Professor Bartos was quite correct in his submission when he wrote that the ABC is expected to operate ‘in line with a normal corporate or commercial governance paradigm’.

The concept of a board director who is elected by a particular group does not fit with modern requirements for good corporate governance. Having a director on the board with divided loyalties creates problems of accountability and conflict of interest. The ABC is accountable to parliament and to the Australian people.

While this move is not an attempt to get rid of the current staff-elected director, Ramona Koval, whose second term expires in June in any case, making her ineligible for re-election, Ms Koval’s term has highlighted some of the anomalies and difficulties with staff-elected director positions. The Senate inquiry heard evidence which supported the view of the government that there should be no question or confusion about the constituency that ABC directors are accountable to. Written evidence provided by Ms Koval showed that she was making it clear to ABC staff that she was representing their views:

... representations I made as Director on your behalf ...

This is an unacceptable conflict of interest for a board member. A staff-elected director will always have a dual concern: the ABC and its staff, and the board. A staff-elected director who does not win staff approval will not be elected. Equally, a staff-elected director who demonstrates a certain political posture is more likely to be elected. That favour may have to be repaid.

However, the fact that this restructure is taking place at the end of Ms Koval’s term is proof that this is not about individuals. The board will still receive and consider regular independent advice from the ABC Advisory Council. The managing director is a full member of the board and a conduit between staff, management and the board. The appointment of the managing director is made independently from the government. The heads of the ABC divisions report regularly to the board, and divisional heads and their management teams take account of staff issues and concerns. The government believes that the ABC board and management will continue to take staff interests into account. The ABC produces an annual equity and diversity report and quarterly reports on audience comments and complaints. And, as some of the submissions to the Senate inquiry made clear, there are also three unions at the ABC to represent the interests of the staff.

Critics of the change are also wrong when they claim that only with a staff-elected director can the board receive direct input on the issues of program making and broadcasting. There is no requirement in the current provisions for a staff-elected director to be someone who works directly in programming or broadcasting. The current board includes a writer, a journalist and two former TV company directors. Furthermore, evidence which was heard at the Senate inquiry casts some doubt on whether a staff-elected director would bring tangible benefits. Rather than bring an intimate understanding of, for instance, ABC Editorial policies, the former director, Mr Quentin Dempster, of Stateline New South Wales, admitted that he had been found to have breached an important ABC rule more than 70 times in two years. If I can take senators back to March 2003 and the Iraq war, Mark Colvin from PM referred to Australian forces as ‘our troops in Iraq’. This brought a furious reaction from news boss John Cameron, who issued not one but two memos banning journalists from referring to ‘our troops in Iraq’ on the grounds that because the ABC did not own them they were not ‘our’.

Now this stand may have been defensible if the ABC had enforced its ban on ‘our’. But over the next two years ABC journalists referred to ‘our Anzacs’, ‘our diggers’, ‘our Vietnam involvement’ and a whole string of 650 other examples. You ask: what action did Mr Cameron, the news boss, take? None. Mr Cameron admitted to watching Stateline New South Wales ‘religiously’ but failed to notice more than 100 breaches of a rule he had been so adamant about enforcing—but only when it involved Australian participation in the Iraq war. And despite a grave warning in Mr Cameron’s March 2003 memo that repeat breaches of the ‘mandatory rule’ would impact on employment status, no action was taken against Mr Dempster, despite more than 70 breaches. Mr Dempster had been shown to be ignorant of an important editorial document at the ABC and of having failed to read two memos from Mr Cameron, and this was the ‘valuable insight’ he could bring to the ABC board.

While I am on the subject of ABC programs and the matter before us today, I will say something about last night’s Media Watch program. During the Senate inquiry into the amendment of the ABC Act, Ramona Koval and some other people who made submissions made the claim that, without a staff-elected director, ‘all the board members will be appointed by the government’. The previous managing director, Mr Balding, was not appointed by the government.