Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I will take the interjection. Surely if this matter is so important then we would have heard from SBS, either at the hearing or in an attempt to approach government members on the committee and say: ‘Look, we think we should have one; we’re supporting our colleagues at the ABC.’ There was not one word from SBS on this matter. The third matter is—and I have heard it from Senator Stephens and Senator Webber—the reflection on the current appointed board members: that the board is stacked, that its members are not independent, and that somehow the board is not operating in the interests of the ABC.

The greatest critic of this legislation, Quentin Dempster, who did appear—and, Senators Stephens and Webber, had you been there you would have heard these comments—acknowledged that there is no evidence that the board members are not independent. The person who came to those hearings determined to destroy this legislation admitted that the board members are independent. So, all of a sudden, one of your main arguments in defence of the SED is out the door because one of the main opponents of this legislation acknowledges that the board members are independent. In relation to independence, I will read a press release from ABC chairman Donald McDonald on 24 March. I will give the full quote so that there is a semblance of fairness:

I have worked with three Staff-Elected Directors and each has sought to make a contribution to the ABC Board—

well, so they should have—

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

The fourth point I want to raise with the chamber is that Mr Dempster acknowledged that the board members are not only independent, and therefore fulfilling their role, but also required by the legislation to fulfil that role. I will read from section 8 of the ABC Act 1983:

Duties of the Board

(1) It is the duty of the Board:

(a) to ensure that the functions of the Corporation are performed efficiently and with the maximum benefit to the people of Australia;

(b) to maintain the independence and integrity of the Corporation ...

This is the nub of the problem and I am afraid that this is where the ALP, in an attempt to curry favour with certain people within the ABC, as I said before, have failed to understand the basic principle of the argument in relation to this matter—that is, the threat to that independence: the compromise associated with the SED position. This was discussed at length in the Uhrig report and I will briefly again refer to that report. For those who might be listening or reading it later on, this question is about representational appointments—as in the staff-elected director’s position. I read from the report:

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.

Indeed, we had further evidence—and my colleague Senator Fierravanti-Wells referred to this—from Professor Stephen Bartos from the National Institute for Governance. I quote from a letter that he submitted to the inquiry.

That said, 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. In my own work on public sector governance ... I also note the difficulties of representative appointments—

he quotes, and I presume this is from his work—

(“It can be difficult for a person appointed because of a link to a particular industry, community or lobby group to divorce themselves from the political role of representing that group to the public sector body to which they have been appointed. It will, however, be to the detriment of the good governance of that organisation…”).

That is further evidence of the foolishness of the ALP’s position in relation to this matter.

There is inherent conflict. The chairman of the ABC board acknowledges publicly that inherent potential for conflict. We had the resignation of one director because of the potential outcomes of the issue I raised before. Indeed, it was very interesting that at the hearing we had three staff-elected directors in one corner and one in the other corner. Those who were at the hearing will know who I am talking about. It was fascinating to hear the one who was not in the corner with the other three talk about his approach to the matters that were raised in relation to appropriate protocols to ensure that you do not have the resignation of directors because of their concerns about confidentiality issues and the leaking of board documents. That former director said that he could see no reason at all for appropriate protocols to be signed to enhance the good corporate governance of that organisation.

This is a folly of the ALP. As I said before, it is designed to curry favour with certain sections of the ABC. Good corporate governance determines that we proceed with this legislation. Indeed, I have some interesting comments from Michael Duffy, the former Minister for Communications, back in 1985, when he reinstated the ABC staff-elected director. As was indicated earlier, they did not have a staff-elected director from 1932 to 1973 and from 1976 to 1983. So this notion that we are ripping away a longstanding SED is absolute, patent nonsense. The big mistake that Michael Duffy made was to bring the SED into this legislation again. But he said in his second reading speech:

The provision does not widen the categories of the Corporation’s business activities; it modernises its corporate structure and enables it to join with the private sector in the furtherance of its activities in a more modern business like way.

The mistake that Michael Duffy made in 1985 was that he was prepared to bow to the demands of the ABC staff—unions, probably—and some representatives rather than putting in place the corporate governance structure that he gave lip-service to in his second reading speech. This legislation should go through. It is good legislation and I support the majority report.