Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to take part in this take-note debate on the question Senator Wong asked of Senator Fifield. The senator did ask about the tenor of the meeting. In fact, she asked about the specific words that were said by the Prime Minister—then Malcolm Turnbull—and the minister for communications, Minister Fifield, that prompted Mr Milne to feel that he could press the managing director of the ABC to sack journalists. Now, the minister artfully dodged the question and refused to answer. We heard a lot of blather but we didn't get much context. Surely Mr Milne did not just dream up the idea that he could pick up the phone and order the sacking of Mr Andrew Probyn or Ms Emma Alberici—that he could just write these things in an email and direct them to the management. Surely he must have felt he needed to act on the instructions of the minister and the then Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull.

But this minister does have a great deal of form when it comes to interfering in the ABC. He did try to give a commitment in September 2017, when he said: 'I give all colleagues a guarantee that the government won't support anything that is to the detriment of the ABC.' Well, since that time, the minister has sought to interfere in the ABC in quite significant ways. First, of course, we have the competitive neutrality review. It sounds all so very nice and benign. Actually, it is the deal he did with One Nation to secure their support for the government. He agreed to have a competitive neutrality review. This is not some benign, no-impact review. In fact, it was described in the Australian Financial Review on 15 August 2017 as 'a deal for the biggest assault on the ABC's independence in decades'. That's how the Australian Financial Review described Minister Fifield's deal with One Nation for a competitive neutrality review into the ABC.

Of course, Minister Fifield this year alone has found many occasions to complain directly to ABC management, not to the board. He feels it is well within his purview as minister to pick up the phone or shoot off an email when he sees something on his screens he doesn't like. First, in January, it was over the date of the Hottest 100. Believe it or not, the minister thought that the moving of the Hottest 100 was somehow politically motivated by the ABC, and he felt he needed to complain. In February, it was the Emma Alberici corporate tax articles. These, of course, were the subject of great complaint by the minister and by the Prime Minister. The ABC conducted a review and decided that there were no material errors in her report and, in fact, the great transgression, if I may use that word, was that she veered from editorial into opinion. That was fixed. The articles were reposted and life has carried on. In March, the minister complained about the Tonightly sketch. In April he complained about a comedy sketch by Black Comedy on the ABC Indigenous Facebook page. And then, again, he was back in May, complaining about Emma Alberici and an innovation story. The complaints review at the ABC found that there was no problem with the article besides a minor issue, and it was nothing that would merit the sacking of a journalist.

But this is how the minister has chosen to go about his role as minister for communications: in response to Senator Wong's question today the minister said, 'I in no way, shape or form sought to influence employment matters at the ABC and I never would.' That is completely not true. In October or November 2016, the minister sought to insert himself into the enterprise bargaining deal the ABC were seeking to strike with their staff. In fact, The Australian said that the minister questioned how the ABC could agree to a deal 'particularly in circumstances where the ABC is facing a number of competing priorities,' and that they are offering benefits which are 'significantly more generous than those adopted by any other Australian government body'. That is how the minister thinks of the ABC—as if it is an Australian government body. It is not. It is an independent media organisation. It is not a state broadcaster; it is a public broadcaster. And it is clear from what we saw in question time today that the minister for communications does not understand that distinction.

Question agreed to.