Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying earlier when I was making a brief contribution to this debate, surely the minister’s statement on 24 March about the roles of directors of the ABC makes clear that the means by which a director is appointed has absolutely nothing to do with the rights, duties and obligations that a person must discharge as a director. In fact, as we all know, and as I said before, it is enshrined within the law. If you are a director it does not matter how you come to be appointed: you must act in the same prescribed manner as all other directors. So the staff-elected director of the ABC does not have the right to cherry-pick which parts of the rights, duties and obligations they can or will undertake. They are required under law to act in the same way as all other directors. So the government’s proposition that the staff-elected director is somehow different under the law is blatantly not true. There can be no uncertainty surrounding their legal position on the board of the ABC. After their election to the board they are simply another director under law.

I will accept that the staff elected director on the board has a different perspective from other directors in that they work within the corporation. They interact on a daily basis as part of their normal work with other staff and management of the ABC. However, that does not change their status or legal obligations. This chamber knows that there is no uncertainty in the legal obligations of the staff-elected director, so why is the minister using that absurd proposition that there is uncertainty about accountability? If this bill is passed by this chamber and becomes law, as the minister and the government are determined that it will, it will mean that all of the directors of the ABC will be appointed by the government. Maybe that is the accountability that the minister is concerned about. Maybe when they say ‘accountability’ the minister and the government actually mean that ultimately all directors of the ABC must be in their view accountable to the whims of the minister and the government of the day and only that, and that they are the only people that should have a say in who the directors shall be.

The government will not have to worry about differences of opinion or dissent on the board of the ABC once the staff-elected director is removed. The only way you can be on the board of the ABC any time in the future once this piece of legislation is passed is if the government appoints you—nothing more, nothing less. Every member of the board of the ABC will be accountable directly to the minister and the government. There will be no uncertainty about accountability in the future. There will be no director on the board who is not put there directly by the minister and the government—no more scrutiny of appointments to the board, no more independent voice. You have to ask yourself the question: why is it now so important to remove the staff-elected director of the ABC board? Why is the minister so concerned about this?

As was outlined in earlier contributions to this debate, the current staff-elected position was created in 1986 under the Hawke government. The staff-elected director has operated therefore for over 20 years. Where has the so-called uncertainty about that staff-elected director’s accountability been in all that time? It would seem that the government has only developed this concern about accountability once it got the numbers in this place to get rid of the only independently appointed director. Has the staff-elected director of the ABC ever been sacked for failing to undertake the duties and obligations as required under the law? Of course they have not. So a system that has worked for over 20 years, one that has provided a voice independent of the government of the day, is now deemed to not be in line with modern principles of corporate governance, according to the minister for communications. That is an absolute nonsense.

Every time the government attempt to cast this amendment in a reasonable way, they are hoist on their own petard. Look at what the explanatory memorandum says:

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 ...

The constituents who elect the director can have whatever expectations they want of that director. As the minister so helpfully points out, upon becoming a member of the board of the ABC the staff-elected director has exactly the same rights, duties and obligations as any other director. The risk that the explanatory memorandum talks about is surely no different from the risk that faces all directors of the ABC. The government and the minister, as the constituents who appoint the other directors, may have exactly the same expectation that those directors will place the interests of their constituents above the interests of the ABC. So the risk exists in either case or it does not exist at all. You cannot have it both ways. Election by the staff creates the same level of risk as appointment by the minister.

The amendment contained in this bill will no doubt have to be followed up in other legislation, as other Commonwealth statutory authorities have staff-elected positions on their governing bodies as well. These include, as has been mentioned before, the Australian National University, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, and the Australian Film, Television and Radio School. However, this is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. If we remove all representational members of boards and governing bodies from Commonwealth statutory authorities and corporations, I am sure that there will be a number of members of The Nationals and their fellow travellers who will lose out in a big way. What is the government going to do about all those representational appointments, especially in the agriculture area? How many boards of the Australian government have representational appointments? Surely, if it is good enough for the ABC to do without representational appointments, it is good enough for any government agency or authority?

Let us look at some examples from the corporate world—the arena where the minister’s so-called modern principles of corporate governance can be seen in operation. Firstly, let us look at a government company that was privatised only seven years ago—the Australian Wheat Board. That was done by this government. Let us examine the corporate governance of the AWB. Indeed, there are two different types of directors, class A and class B, who are elected by class A or class B shareholders. Class A directors are elected on a regional basis—two from New South Wales, two from Western Australia, one from South Australia, one from Victoria-Tasmania and one from Queensland-Northern Territory. A further two directors are elected by class B shareholders and two more are appointed by class A directors. So, by any measure, the AWB has a board elected and appointed on a representational basis. Some are elected on a regional basis, some are determined by the types of shares and some are appointed.

Surely, when the government talk about the principles of modern governance for the ABC, they would do well to apply the same principles to Australian companies. Look at what the corporate governance document of the AWB says:

Regardless of who elects or appoints a director, each director is obliged to act in the interests of AWB as a whole. Although directors may be elected by particular shareholders, directors are not considered the servants or agents of particular groups of shareholders or required to follow directions of or requests from any group of shareholders ...

BP Australia simply appoints its directors, and I suppose that is the model that the government are now proposing for the ABC. Woolworths Ltd directors are appointed, and the directors of the Australian Submarine Corporation are all appointed by the Minister for Finance and Administration.

The modern principles of corporate governance seem, from a cursory examination, to consist of directors being appointed by other directors, sometimes being elected by shareholders and sometimes on a representational basis. In none of the examples I am aware of is any director beholden to the group that elects or appoints them. In all cases, directors are required under law to act in the best interests of the corporation or company. The government has used a ridiculous assertion—that of uncertain accountability—to remove the staff-elected director from the board of the ABC. This is not for any reasons of modern corporate governance, nor for the reason of uncertain accountability, but solely for the reason of political expediency. With the removal of the staff-elected director of the ABC, the government will be completely in control of the ABC. This is what Mr Howard’s government has delivered after 10 long years: a less open and transparent ABC, appointed by government to serve the wishes of government without the possibility of independence or dissent.

The ABC, as was mentioned by Senator Conroy, is not like any of the other broadcasting companies in this country. The ABC fills a unique position in the Australian community and is full of hardworking, creative and inspirational talent. The ABC has been at the forefront of innovation, creativity and risk for its entire lifespan. The decision by the minister to remove the staff-elected director is not a step forward into modern corporate governance but a step backwards into an organisation run by mates for mates. The ABC has a unique place in our community, and the staff-elected director has demonstrated that they are able to effectively discharge the duties of a director and act in the best interests of the ABC as a whole. This is not an accountability debate. This is not even close to a corporate governance debate. This is simply a grab for power by the minister and the government, behind spurious and ridiculous reasoning.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Webber interjecting—

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

The acting managing director, Mr Green, was not appointed by the government, and the next managing director will also not be appointed by the government, Senator Webber. What did we get from Ms Attard on Media Watch last night? She said:

As we reported a few weeks ago, the government has decided to abolish the staff representative, to keep the board exclusively for government appointees.

This is a false statement and the very kind of misreporting that Media Watch is supposed to expose.

That is not the only curious piece of ‘reporting’—and I use the term loosely—going on at the ABC these days. Richard Aedy, on Radio National’s Media Report, on the one hand stated as a matter of fact that Australia was being turned into a police state, while at the same time lamenting that journalists are not as sympathetic towards terrorists as they used to be in the good old days. According to ABC answers to questions at Senate estimates, the ABC is now officially of the view that the government’s much needed counter-terrorism laws are ‘draconian’. That is the opinion of a small minority of civil liberties types and perennial critics of the Howard government. It is not the view of the government, nor of the Australian Federal Police or a host of counter-terrorism experts. For the ABC to adopt the policy position of one side of a debate is a disgrace.

The ABC has been forced to admit that its reporters have presented accusations of mistreatment made by terror suspects as matters of fact. Lateline has a policy of always referring to the war on terror as the ‘so-called war on terror’. It gives a carte blanche platform to the divisive and partisan Robert Fisk, who also used an ABC platform to encourage the wild conspiracy theory that the United States itself was somehow responsible for the attacks of September 11.

The ABC program Four Corners has recently peddled the far left-wing view that the al-Qaeda terrorist al-Zarqawi is a creation of the United States. The ABC refuses to call an Islamic Jihad suicide bomber who blows up a cafe or bus full of innocent civilians a ‘terrorist’. The ABC still has as a guiding principle in its news and current affairs style guide the hackneyed old cliche: ‘Remember, one person’s terrorist is usually someone else’s freedom fighter.’ Whose freedom is Osama bin Laden fighting for? The Melbourne radio broadcaster Jon Faine recently interviewed an Indonesian apologist or supporter of the terrorist group Jemaah Islamiah. During the interview, Mr Faine made this reference: ‘Mr Osama bin Laden’, obviously intending some respect to the terrorist bin Laden.

The ABC has been forced to admit to a range of breaches of its editorial policies and style guide which show that it takes sides or at least has created the perception that it takes sides with the following: left-wing political parties, David Hicks, left-wing American activists Cindy Sheehan and Scott Parkin, and the causes celebre of immigration activists. Just look at the way it always refers to immigration activists as ‘refugee advocates’. The ABC has been forced to admit a range of indiscretions in terms of promoting trade union protest activities in news bulletins, in contravention of ABC rules, including time and place of protest and even the 1800 number. All this when the ABC actually has a policy which bans reporters from using the expression ‘strike action’. Tony Eastley on AM presented Gough Whitlam’s view of the dismissal—that it subverted the Constitution—as a fact, not as the highly partisan and contested opinion that it is.

Furthermore, I am still waiting for the ABC management to provide a coherent answer to the many questions raised about the employment of one Lindsay McDougall, one half of Jay and the Doctor on Triple J breakfast. This person mounted an offensive personal campaign against the Prime Minister during the 2004 election, including putting together a musical compilation with one song titled Johnny Howard, take a gun to him. This venal behaviour was rewarded with part-time employment at the ABC. After the election, Mr McDougall then announced his decision to campaign hard to stop the coalition being re-elected in 2007. This is my paraphrasing. His actual words are not fit for this chamber. This led to the offer of a full-time position on Triple J and, ever since, Mr McDougall has exploited the opportunity to continue his partisan political crusade against the Howard government. Ministers and policies are regularly ridiculed, all at taxpayers’ expense.

The ABC had a wonderful opportunity at the time of the release of the Latham Diaries when five senior figures from the ALP, including its president, were interviewed on current affairs programs. They had a wonderful opportunity to ask the one really hard question that the Latham episode continues to pose for the ALP: what does the selection of Mr Latham as leader say about the judgment of the parliamentary Labor Party? Do you think that question was asked? Not once. Instead we got examples like Kerry O’Brien’s dorothy dixer to then party president Barry Jones, in terms of the way Mr Latham portrayed the ALP: ‘Is this the Labor Party you recognise?’

ABC programs make a whole range of attacks on the faith of Christianity but not other religions. The ABC provides a very biased coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As a recent example of that claim, it stated that last month’s suicide bomb attack in Israel was ‘the first since Hamas won control of the Palestinian parliament’. That was a suicide bomb attack in which a Palestinian terrorist, dressed as an Orthodox Jew, blew up four innocent Israeli civilians who stopped to give him a ride. The ABC has officially taken the Palestinian side of the debate on the highly contentious issue of whether events at Jenin four years ago were an Israeli massacre. It hides the truth about the Hezbollah TV station, Al Manar. Australian soldiers serving our country in Iraq are on so-called ‘active service’, according to the ABC. TV presenters in Sydney were told not to wear a poppy on Remembrance Day because ‘the ABC doesn’t do World Aids Day either’. Evidence at estimates shows the ABC portraying Mrs Howard and Mrs Bush as racists.

The duty of the board is ‘to ensure that the functions of the corporation are performed efficiently and with the maximum benefit to the people of Australia’—that is, all Australians, not the sectional interests, some of which I have raised today. When the ABC news boss, Mr Cameron, was asked at Senate estimates about a journalist who had posed the question: ‘Do we’—that is, the ABC—‘need to get rid of the federal Liberal government?’ he was also asked whether it was the official policy of the ABC to get rid of the federal Liberal government. He replied that he would have to take the question on notice. We are still waiting for the answer. Judging from the activities of the ABC, the answer is clearly yes. If there is any threat to the independence of the ABC, it is not from the sensible and long overdue reform to the governance of the ABC board. It comes from the pernicious left-wing influence that permeates far too much of the ABC’s biased and unbalanced coverage.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Science and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am a bit taken aback by that contribution to the debate and I will leave the individuals who suffered such a personal attack to defend themselves. It was a quite extraordinary attack on individuals which, no doubt, will be pursued in the public domain. I rise to contribute to the debate about the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment Bill 2006, which is before us in the Senate at the moment and which we on this side of the chamber know is a sad attempt by the Howard government to actually undermine the efficiency, integrity and independence of Australia’s national broadcaster—and that is perhaps what is reflected in the words of the previous speaker.

The ABC was established in 1932 and today it is one of Australia’s national icons. It began as a radio network, expanding over time to encompass television, print media and online services. It does not matter whether you live in metropolitan or rural Australia, you can see or hear the ABC. The Australia-Pacific television services even broadcast to Australians living in some overseas locations. During World War II, the ABC gained a reputation for delivering an authoritative and independent news bulletin to Australians across this huge continent. In the postwar years, the quality and quantity of ABC programming was expanded dramatically. Light entertainment, sports and talkback were added to the roster. In the fifties the ABC increased the number of journalists and broadcasters dedicated to coverage of rural affairs.

In late 1956 the ABC started regular television broadcasts from Sydney and Melbourne, broadcasting the Olympic Games from Melbourne. Then in the sixties and seventies we saw news and current affairs dramatically influenced by an expanding social and intellectual awareness in the community. In 1961 ABC TV started a weekly current affairs program, Four Corners, and a new, vigorous investigative style of reporting political and social issues began. 1967 saw the introduction of a new weeknight current affairs program, This Day Tonight, alongside its radio counterpart, PM. The era also saw such pioneering television shows as Six O’Clock Rock, Hitscene and Countdown, as well as The Science Show on ABC Radio.

As we all know, this is the era that produced arguably one of Australia’s greatest news and current affairs reporters, Richard Carleton, who spent a quarter of a century at the ABC, working on This Day Tonight, State of the Nation and Nationwide, and he fronted the Carleton-Walsh Report, which featured Richard’s unique political commentary. With his death on Sunday, Australia lost a great personality and a dynamic journalist. I am sure that everyone in this place joins together in expressing to his family our deep regret at his death.

The 1980s and beyond saw significant restructuring at the ABC. Indigenous affairs, comedy, social history and current affairs all expanded quite significantly. During its 74-year history, the ABC has helped to define and evolve Australia’s national identity. When the Howard government came to power in 1996, it immediately reduced the ABC’s operational grants by 10 per cent—an attempt to curtail the ABC’s political coverage via its news and current affairs divisions. By attempting to abolish the staff-elected director position, the Howard government again seeks absolute control over the ABC board and, as such, control over programming and policy.

The ABC, particularly in its current affairs programming, has been consistently open, honest and critical in its analysis of the Howard government, and I know that this rankles those sitting on the benches opposite. The staff-elected director is the only position on the ABC board whose appointment is completely transparent. Its abolition would open the way for yet another government-appointed director to the board.

Section 8 of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 outlines the 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;

(c)

to ensure that the gathering and presentation by the Corporation of news and information is accurate and impartial according to the recognized standards of objective journalism ...

It is my strong belief and the belief of those on this side of the chamber that abolishing the staff-elected director and deputy staff-elected director positions can have only one result: the ABC board will no longer be able to maintain the independence and integrity of the ABC. Abolishing the staff-elected position removes the only non-government-appointed member of what is already a politically stacked board. It has historically been the case that the staff-elected director is often the only person on the board with extensive broadcasting experience. So eliminating the staff-elected position on the board eliminates essential knowledge of the ABC’s core business.

One submission to the Senate inquiry into this bill had the following to say:

The ABC plays a critical role in our Australian society in being a truly independent voice in an environment where most of the media is owned and controlled by ‘Big Business’ and vested interests. Witness the ‘hype’ surrounding Kerry Packer’s death and the power wielded by the Murdoch empire.

It would be ironic if the one elected member of the ABC is cast aside in favour of yet another Government appointee. For the ABC to remain truly independent it needs to be a ‘voice of the people’, a role filled by the staff-elected director.

Let us make no mistake about it: the ABC is under attack from the Howard government. During Senate estimates last year, the ABC revealed that, in real terms, it has lost $51 million per annum from its budget since the Prime Minister came to office. The Prime Minister has an obsession with the ABC. The ABC’s funding cuts have had a dramatic impact on its ability to fulfil its charter obligations. This is particularly evident in the production of Australian drama. Production of local adult drama totalled only 20 hours last year—a major decline from the 102 hours broadcast in 2001.

ABC Rural has also suffered under the Howard government’s funding cuts. ABC local radio plays an integral part in the lives of regional Australians. It is often the only source of reliable news and information for people in rural and regional Australia, particularly during times of crisis such as bushfires. The ABC rural department’s flagship program, Country Hour, is now in Guinness World Records as Australia’s longest-running radio program, last year celebrating 60 years of rural broadcasting. The essential services that the ABC provides to rural Australians are under threat because the Howard government refuses to adequately fund the ABC.

The Howard government made a promise during the 2004 election to review the adequacy of the ABC’s funding. The minister appointed KPMG to undertake this review. The government has received KPMG’s report, but the minister refuses to release it. What has the government got to hide? Perhaps it found that the ABC is chronically underfunded. The Australian people deserve a world-class public broadcaster and they are entitled to a proper debate about the level of funding required to achieve that. Instead, this government stifles debate as it works towards its goal of destroying the ABC. Senator Coonan claims the report has not been released because it is a budget input. Australian taxpayers are not so easily fooled. They will be watching tonight’s budget announcement with keen interest. After 10 years of watching—

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

Madam Acting Deputy President Crossin, I raise a point of order. I fail to see what relevance these comments have to the matter before the chamber. We can all have the debate about funding et cetera at some other time and I am happy to have that. But I do not believe this is relevant to the matter before us.

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, on the point of order: I think Senator Ronaldson would be aware that those of us present on this side of the chamber sat through an extraordinary contribution from the previous speaker that had absolutely nothing to do with the specifics of this debate. If we are going to play the game of impatience then we can play it. We were very patient here during what was an extraordinarily insulting contribution, so we might just like to calm down.

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

Madam Acting Deputy President, on the point of order: quite frankly, what the opposition choose to do when those on this side are speaking is entirely up to them. I again bring to your attention that I think this is totally irrelevant.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senators, this is a bill about the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and it is a wide-ranging debate. There is no point of order.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Science and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There has been speculation that the ABC may receive extra funding this evening, earmarked for producing local content programs. If this speculation turns into reality in tonight’s budget then it will certainly be a good thing for the ABC and long overdue. The government should be providing the ABC with the funding it needs to be a leader in the transition to digital TV in Australia. It should be providing the ABC with the funding it needs to boost coverage to underserviced areas of rural and regional Australia.

Earlier this year the government began softening up the Australian people to the idea of advertising on the ABC. The government went to the last election with a promise to maintain the prohibition on advertising. Does the government intend to honour this election promise it made to the Australian people? If not, why not? The Australian taxpayers are certainly entitled to know the truth about that issue as well.

With the introduction of this bill, the government has moved its attack on the ABC up another notch. Over the past 10 years the government has stacked the ABC board with its political mates, so much so that there is a clear political bias amongst the current board members. As a result, many Australians—particularly those living in rural and regional Australia, where the impacts of the government’s funding crunch have been particularly devastating—have lost confidence in the independence of the ABC.

The staff-elected position on the board of the ABC is the one and only appointment that the Prime Minister has no direct control over. Naturally, he is seeking to remove it. The staff-elected director is a valuable and important position on the ABC board. When one looks at the current board, the staff-elected director, as I said before, is often the only person with operational experience. The staff-elected director is often the only person with the skills, knowledge and background to question advice from the ABC’s executive. But the Prime Minister does not care about the future of the ABC. He does not care about appointing people to the board who have experience in public broadcasting. What he does care about is appointing his ideological mates to the board—people who have no understanding of the whole charter of public broadcasting.

Labor believes that vacancies should be advertised and a rigorous merit based selection process should be followed in appointing members to the ABC board. Certainly, under Labor an independent selection panel will shortlist suitably qualified applicants. Under Labor, the ABC will remain independent of the minister. If the minister does appoint a non-shortlisted candidate, he or she would actually be required to explain the reasons for that to the parliament and the Australian people.

Senator Coonan claims there is a conflict of interest for the staff-elected director. She believes the staff-elected director will place the interests of ABC staff ahead of the interests of the ABC as a whole. Frankly, that is an insult to ABC staff and it really demonstrates the government’s low opinion of the ABC. Another submission to the Senate inquiry succinctly summed up this insulting assertion: ‘There is another view: an elected board member has an operational perspective that those outside the organisation cannot have. This provides a more balanced view when deciding policy issues. It is important that decisions made by the ABC board are as completely informed as possible, since such decisions potentially affect all citizens.’

In the second reading speech to this bill, the minister said:

Despite the abolition of the staff-elected Director position on the ABC Board, the Government expects the ABC Board and management to continue to take the interests of staff into account in its deliberations.

On the one hand, the minister says the staff-elected director position must be abolished because an ABC staff member will take the interests of staff into account during deliberations, then on the other the minister asserts that the board will be expected to take into account the interests of staff after the staff-elected director position is abolished. You cannot have it both ways, Minister. Page 21 of the ABC’s 2005 annual report states:

A critical point has been reached. Unless adequate funding is secured for the coming triennium, the Board will be faced with a range of fundamental questions about the extent and quality of ABC programming and services.

The Howard government should join Labor in recognising the ABC as a national asset, not an opportunity for cronyism. It should also end its extreme industrial relations campaign and recognise that the staff-elected director of the ABC is not elected to the ABC board as a union delegate. The staff-elected director does not sit on the board—and is not elected to the board by the staff of the ABC—to put the industrial interests of staff to the board. That would be the managing director’s role.

The Senate inquiry heard no examples of actual or potential conflicts of interest from current or former staff-elected directors. It is an insult for the minister to claim that the staff-elected director is incapable of acting independently—as is required of all directors, not just the staff-elected director—in the best interests of the ABC as a whole. By using the Uhrig report as the sole reason for presentation of this bill to parliament, the government does a great disservice to both Professor Uhrig and the ABC. Unfortunately, Professor Uhrig’s terms of reference were completely distorted, leading to widespread criticism that Uhrig’s focus was misplaced. Former chairman of the ACCC Professor Allan Fels and journalist Fred Benchley both argued that the report was ‘basically a business wish list’. The Uhrig report focused on the need for effective dialogue with business, failing to highlight the need for protection of regulatory agencies from the threat of regulatory capture. It also failed to highlight the need for the scrutiny of statutory agencies through the Senate estimates process. So, unfortunately, Professor Uhrig and the ABC were failed by this government through incomplete terms of reference. It is in the best interests of the ABC and its charter, and the ABC’s obligations under that charter to the Australian people, that the staff-elected director’s position remain.

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

Unless I am mistaken, I do not think that Senators Webber or Stephens were actually at the inquiry, but if you were then I offer my humble apologies. Given the fact that I actually have not heard them complaining about that comment, I assume that they were not. How Senator Stephens can then wax lyrical about what evidence was given at the committee, I am not entirely sure. But anyway, leaving that to one side, I actually was at that committee hearing, and I did not hear any semblance of evidence given that would indicate that there is any case for the retention of the SED—the staff-elected director’s position. I heard not one ounce of evidence that would substantiate that, and I think what we have seen clearly today is that the ALP is prepared to put good corporate governance to one side in an attempt to curry favour with the ABC staff and with certain ABC journalists. I think that is a very poor reflection on it.

I very strongly support the majority report by the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment Bill 2006. There are a number of matters I would like to bring to the attention of the Senate in support of that position. The first is that staff matters are the domain of the organisation, and they are not the domain of someone apparently representing them on the board. There is a complete structure within the ABC, right up to the managing director, for staff matters to be addressed by the organisation. If that fails, the unions—who appeared at the hearing—made it quite clear that they were there to represent the staff interest. Indeed, they were a little bit miffed when it was suggested to them that it might be the role of the staff-elected director. In fact, they were more than a little miffed with that accusation.

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

We will have to see about that.

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

Indeed, as Senator Fierravanti-Wells said, they will have to see about that. The other interesting point on this matter is that SBS does not have a staff-elected director. I have had no representations from the SBS staff that they believe there should be a staff-elected director, not one.

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would not matter if you did.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

George Campbell (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First of all, I say that the arguments that we have heard from the other side of the chamber are appalling in seeking to justify what is a blatant political act. Neither Senator Ronaldson, in his usual loud, aggressive manner, nor Senator Fierravanti-Wells addressed at all the substance of what the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment Bill 2006 is about. I heard a lot of bagging of the ABC and the way in which it reports particular stories, but never once did Senator Fierravanti-Wells address or attempt to address in her contribution the issues of substance in this bill.

This bill has nothing to do with good corporate governance. If it did, we might treat seriously it and the arguments that were presented by some of the senators on the other side. But it has nothing to do at all with that. This is another instalment by the government in union bashing. The government have sought from 1996 and all the way through to systematically remove from any boards, government or otherwise, union representatives or representatives of workers—many of them were representatives of workers and did not represent unions in that context. The government have done it to the Austrade board, they have done or are now seeking to do it to the ABC and they have done it to a whole range of other boards. It has been a systematic part of the union-bashing agenda.

The Prime Minister struts the country, proudly arguing his credentials as a representative of the workers—Howard’s battlers—and looking after their interests.

Amanda Vanstone (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We did not put a million of them out of work.

George Campbell (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But he is not prepared, Senator Vanstone, to give them a voice in saying how their organisations or corporations should be run. In fact, he has quite deliberately set out to remove any voice they have in that respect. He has set out to restore absolutely the managerial prerogative as the central focal point upon which companies in this country are run, and this is simply another step in that process.

If the government were really serious about addressing the issue of good governance, it would end the practice of stacking the ABC board with its cronies. You only have to look at the list of people who have been appointed by this government to see the political bias of the individual. The current chairman is a very close friend of the Prime Minister. Michael Kroger is an ex-president of the Liberal Party in Victoria. Janet Albrechtsen—I do not think I need to explain her credentials; you only have to read her articles in the Australian to know what side of the political fence she is coming from. They are all appointments by this government to create a particular bias on the board.

Since 2003, Labor has argued that there should be an open and transparent process for making appointments to the ABC board. What is wrong with that approach? What is wrong with having a situation where the appointments are open and transparent? What is wrong with having an approach where vacancies are advertised on clear, merit-based selection criteria? An independent selection panel should conduct a short-list selection process. The selection of the short list would be independent of the minister. If the minister does not appoint a short-listed candidate, he or she should have to table in parliament a formal statement of the reasons for departing from the short list. That is a reasonable proposition: to justify why you do not deal with the people who are put up as priority candidates.

They are only some of the issues that could be addressed by the government if they were serious about introducing good corporate governance into the ABC. But this is not about good corporate governance. This is about preventing people in the ABC from having a genuine voice in the way in which that institution is run. We know the pressures that are and have been exerted on that organisation internally. We know some of the dictates that have been issued by senior management in the ABC about the way in which reporting will take place. We know that there have been specific directives issued by the head of news and current affairs, a Mr John Cameron, as to how the government should be addressed and the particular language that should be used to refer to the government so as not to embarrass them. We know that the pressure on individuals at the ABC has been consistently turned up to force them to conform to a set of strictures which, I presume, are emanating from the board. And that has all been done in order to ensure that the ABC, when it presents news or current affairs in particular, presents it in a particular way to put the best possible face on the government.

That is what the agenda is about. Obviously one of the ways of ensuring that is to get rid of the independent voice of the board. I understand that the individual who turned up at the hearings, Quentin Dempster, has just been selected by the employees of the ABC to replace Ramona Koval as the staff-appointed director. I think that in his previous time in that position he did a reasonable job on behalf of ABC staff.

What the staff-appointed directors bring to the corporation is something the current management of the corporation does not possess in the main, and that is broadcasting expertise. There are two clear divisions in the ABC: there is the administrative or corporate division, which runs the organisation and is growing like a mushroom at the moment from what it used to be, and there is the other division, which contains the people who make the programs—the people who put the stories to air; the people who go out, collect the news, present the news and give Australians and Australia as reflective a message about what is happening in society as they can. I think they are operating under great difficulties but still provide as independent a message as you will get through any media outlet in this country.

It is very significant that staff are represented within the structures of the ABC. It is very significant that the ABC board does have that voice represented when it comes to make decisions about the way in which that corporation will be run, because without it there is a real danger that people whose lack of expertise in broadcasting, presenting stories and putting stories together will make decisions that make it difficult for the organisation to operate or that put bias into the nature of the reporting of that organisation. Having the independent director there, representing particularly the interests of the program makers, is a major brake against that sort of situation occurring.

Why do we want to get rid of them? Senator Ronaldson attempted to argue here—I would not say it was argued—that it is about good corporate governance. There is also an argument that, somehow or other, because Ms Koval would not sign a protocol she was not independent. I am not aware of any occasion when the staff-elected director on the ABC board has been told or instructed by a meeting of their peers that they had to act in a particular way. To my knowledge, there is no evidence of any such circumstance occurring. I do have a little insight into the ABC from time to time because of my relationships with people at the ABC, but I am not aware of any occasion at any time I have known people there when any of the staff directors have been issued instructions that they had to act in a particular way. They have been appointed by the staff, they have the goodwill of the staff and the staff expect them to act in the best interests of the organisation—and if they act in the best interests of the organisation then they would be acting in the best interests of the staff themselves. That has always been the approach that has been taken.

I know how much the minister, Senator Coonan, likes to please the Prime Minister. She has had a meteoric rise to fame since she jumped the fence from the moderates to the conservatives—to the Prime Minister’s faction in the New South Wales Liberal Party. She is now the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, and she is quite keen to please the Prime Minister in the way in which she handles her portfolio. But she cited the refusal of Ms Ramona Koval to sign the ABC board protocol in her attempts to justify the removal of the position.

Ms Koval has explained to the board and to the Senate committee that inquired into the bill that she sought independent legal advice in respect of the protocol, which she said was actually inconsistent with her legal obligation to act independently. She was actually being asked to sign a set of protocols which, as I understand it, her legal people were saying would be a restriction on her acting independently on the board. She was being asked to subscribe to something that would restrict her capacity to genuinely represent in an independent fashion the people who elected her to that position. I think it is perfectly justifiable that she refused to do so.

I just wish that some of the people who sit on the boards of directors of companies would read the companies act occasionally, reflect on what their responsibilities regarding good corporate governance are and act accordingly and take their position seriously in ensuring they act independently and on behalf of the shareholders of companies. If they did, we might not have had some of the fiascos that we have had in recent times with companies in this country. We certainly might not have had the fiasco we had with Westpoint, in terms of the super rip-off that has affected thousands of senior citizens who invested in that, thinking that they were laying a nest egg for the future, only for that nest egg to suddenly disappear. I wish that directors would sit down and think about acting independently and reflect on the requirements for them to operate as directors of companies or corporations in the same way that Ms Koval has.

The reality is that this is not about the leaks from the board. Who knows who leaks information from the board? The government are quite often keen to leak what happens in the cabinet room when it suits them. We already know three-quarters of what is in tonight’s budget. It has been in the papers for the last three days because the Treasurer has been telling us what is in it.

Why are we suddenly worried about a leak from the ABC board? How do we know that it was not the management of the ABC that leaked some of the stories about the dealings of the board? How do we know whether or not some of the people on the board did it deliberately to try and reflect the independent director in a bad light? No-one really knows. No-one can prove that Ms Koval or Mr Dempster—or whoever else is the independent director on the ABC board—was responsible for leaking, because there is no evidence. No evidence has been found or presented to suggest that any of the directors of the ABC board leaked any of the information that is supposed to have been leaked.

Quite frankly, the motivations behind this have nothing to do with the issue of good corporate governance. This is about removing what is seen by this government as another impediment to them being able to do what they want to do with the ABC. This is about another hurdle being pushed to the side so that they can move in and do whatever it is that they want to do with that organisation. That is what the agenda is here; that is what the agenda has always been with this legislation.

It is a pity that the government took a hardline decision. We know they took a decision in the cabinet room to get rid of workers’ representatives from organisations. I know that Tim Fischer, when he was Deputy Prime Minister, fought hard to retain the person on the Austrade board, because they were making a contribution. He had to fight vigorously to retain them. But most of the rest of them were shifted very quickly. This is an extension of that agenda. At heart, the government have an implied hatred for workers being organised and being represented independently. This is about ensuring that the managerial prerogative becomes the central focal point of how organisations are run in this country and that workers will go to work, do as they are told and accept it without any question.

As far as I am concerned, this amendment ought to be rejected by the Senate. I know it will not be; I know it will be carried; I know you will proceed to run your agenda at the ABC. People out there listening should be warned: if that happens, think carefully about the messages that you hear coming through your radio and television, because the truth is a whimsical thing these days in modern broadcasting.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is no surprise that we are here today looking at the attempt—and the successful attempt—by the government to remove the staff-elected representative from the ABC board. What has made me particularly angry is the fact that there has been an attempt to dress up what is clearly a political decision—and the government has every right to argue and present political decisions—to remove a director from the ABC board who is not appointed by the government. We have heard the extraordinary amount of passion which this particular decision is generating. In this chamber today we have had amazing arguments, which included things like people’s views about the whole way the ABC operates, interpretations of legislation and statements about what has led to the debate we are having today.

When the minister in March this year made the announcement that this was the intent and through the normal processes of the Senate there was formed a committee to look at the legislation, people in the community who are interested in the ABC again showed that they cared about decisions that impact on the ABC. In a very short time, over 50 submissions were received, mainly from people or organisations who had some particular interest in the ABC, such as people who had had the amazing privilege to serve on the board of the ABC in some capacity, some as staff-elected representatives and others who had other forms of involvement on the ABC board. When we talk about the ABC, a response from the community is generated. To some extent, the government was surprised by the degree of passion that came out in a number of the submissions and also in the direct commentary that was made during the gathering of submissions and in the giving of evidence.

It seems that every argument that is made about the role of the staff-elected representative on the board can be then turned around and used about the other members of the board, who are appointed by the minister. Some members of the government seem to think that there is some form of personal conspiracy because we do not always say that the managing director is elected by the other board members and not appointed by the minister, so let us get that on the table straightaway so that there is no allegation that we are misrepresenting the make-up of the ABC board. We know where the ABC board gets it basis to operate from: it is in the act, and we have had senators in this place talk about section 8 of the ABC Act, which clearly says that the board is there to work for the ABC. Then there are a whole lot of subsections which I will not go into, but people can examine them very easily and see what the legislation surrounding the formation of the ABC is all about. As for any other board in the country, there are particular expectations of and responsibilities given to those people who have the privilege of serving on the ABC board.

That is in another piece of legislation, which other members of this place are much more familiar with than I am, but I am going to quote from it to prove I have read it. It is the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997, which is the legislation that sets out what people who are members of boards do—what their responsibilities are. That act requires that a board member of any body covered under the act must perform their duties on the basis that he or she:

(a)

makes the judgment in good faith for a proper purpose; and

(b)

does not have a material personal interest in the subject matter of the judgment; and

(c)

informs himself or herself about the subject matter of the judgment to the extent he or she reasonably believes to be appropriate; and

(d)

rationally believes that the judgment is in the best interests of the Commonwealth authority.

They are fairly direct responsibilities, and it is the responsibility of any person who wishes to serve on a board and is then fortunate enough to get that responsibility to know and to act within those constraints.

There are very clear penalties for any board member of any corporation who does not act according to those expectations. That seems to be the core point, because at the Senate inquiry there was no evidence that indicated that the board member on the current ABC board, or previous boards, who was appointed through a staff election had breached any of these requirements, nor was there any evidence, as we have heard from Senator Ronaldson, that any other board member who had been appointed by various ministers had breached those responsibilities. So what we had was amazing agreement, passionate agreement, that people who had the privilege to serve on the board of the ABC accepted their responsibilities, regardless of the process that led them to the position, and operated as they ought under board legislation as well as under the expectations of the ABC. There was, again, no evidence to indicate that any board member had breached their responsibilities.

However, because of the nature of the debate, because the minister had determined that there was a need to make this board more efficient by removing the one board member who is elected by the staff, the inference is that every single member of the board who had been elected through a staff process needed somehow to justify their performance. We had evidence given to the committee and statements in submissions that said it was necessary to reinforce the credentials, the credibility and the performance of every single staff-elected board member since this position was instituted in the early 1970s—we do know that a previous Liberal-National government in the Fraser years removed the position and then it was re-formed in the 1980s. Every single staff-elected board member—Marius Webb, Tom Molomby, Quentin Dempster, John Cleary, Kirsten Garrett, Ian Henschke and Ramona Koval—all had to somehow have their performance reinforced to prove that they had done the job and that they had been efficient.

I am not sure how many other board members served on the ABC boards over that time with these various staff-elected representatives, but there would have been many. I do not understand why their performance did not need to be justified and why their integrity did not need to be reinforced or questioned, but somehow those members who came through the process of staff election needed to be questioned about the role they played. The clear inference, by the way that this proposition has been brought before all of us, is that there is something not quite effective in any board member who has reached the position through a staff election. There is no evidence that that is accurate. In various submissions they have had numerous positions attributed to their actions, and I think that is a bit sad. I believe that a board should operate together and the fact that individual board members seem to have had attributed to their efforts particular positions in isolation, I think is a false judgment. I believe that every board member, being aware of their responsibilities and bringing their own experience, professionalism and expectations to the board table, works in concert to come up with a result.

However, it is clear on the public record that those members of the board who came through the staff election process all had exceptional qualifications in their professional work, in their ability to talk with other staff members and gain their support and, most particularly, in their commitment to their position as an elected representative on the ABC board. What I find most frustrating and most offensive in the process we are going through now is that that is being somehow tarnished and the role of these people is now being somehow questioned—the only way it is possible to have an effective, operational board of the ABC is to remove this particular position because of the way those people got their appointments. I find that false.

Where do we go? Of course the government has the numbers in the Senate. I hope that we will not see the kinds of personal attacks on the people who have served on the board that come out of a debate like this. It is clear that the Australian community wants members on the board of the ABC who get there openly, whose actions are transparent and who have a commitment to the ABC.

The Labor Party and the minor parties have put forward recommendations about alternative methods of ministerial appointment because there have been allegations, and we have heard them in the debate today, that governments of various flavours have had processes of appointing people to the ABC board—without any doubt about their effectiveness working there, because every minister would have that as the most important element of the decision-making process—that result in the appointment of people with varied backgrounds and from time to time very little personal experience of working in public broadcasting. That is not to say that they would not have the ability to acquire the skills and work very effectively on a board. But it is fair to say that people who are currently working in the environment, people who are now working in the ABC, would have the immediacy of the knowledge of the extra stresses, the kind of environment in which public broadcasting operates and the knowledge of the general activities that go on in the staff.

That is not to say that there is any confusion amongst the people who work for the ABC or those people who have been privileged to be elected by them to be staff-elected representatives on the board. They do not have any doubt about what their role should be. There was clear evidence to the committee that it was understood by the people who were staff-elected representatives to the board as well as by other people that they were not there to be some form of industrial representation or advocacy. I know from my own experience working in the public sector that there were numerous times when in the ABC itself there were differences of opinion over things that came out of board decisions and the expectations of various unions working in the ABC. But there was never any confusion about the staff-elected person on the board having any more responsibility than any other board member to look at the issues of staff entitlements. Hopefully, some of the members had very strong experience in the business world and understood human relationships and human resource management.

So the role of the board member was not in question. Nor was the expectation of the staff about the role of the board member. But this particular decision by the government to single out this representative position once again, as I have said, calls into question the integrity, the professionalism and the effectiveness of every single person who got onto that board by being elected by the staff. I find that very disappointing. It is also clearly not backed up by evidence of any decisions or processes that went on.

We have had read to the Senate as well as to the committee evidence put forward by Mr Donald McDonald, who talked about the tensions of board members, particularly those who were there through a staff election process. I believe that Senator Wortley said earlier that a certain degree of tension creates creativity. Indeed there is fact in that particular process. Naturally when you have seven, eight or nine people—depending on how many people actually turn up to the board meetings—sitting there debating such difficult issues as the ongoing struggle to maintain a strong public broadcaster in Australia, there will be tensions. There will be strong disagreements from time to time. But again I question whether drawing into the focus one particular board member on the basis of the process through which they achieved their appointment, and implying—if not directly and openly stating—that all tension in the ABC board has been caused by that particular board member, is patently false. But, again, the process we have before us of debating in this place indicates that that is the kind of message that has been given. I would hope that it is clear in whatever the government does say that there is no personal inference on any of the people who have served the ABC board so strongly.

The Senate inquiry minority report felt that there needed to be some comment about statements made about Ms Koval and the highly publicised decision about whether she would sign protocols or not. Ms Koval has made her position very public and it is on the public record. But it is sad that once again there was an attempt to attack her position and make that some form of cause celebre to indicate that she was not effectively fulfilling her role. But fulfilling the requirements of her job as an ABC staff-elected board member and the requirements of being on the board were not questioned or crossed by her decision not to sign those protocols. If there was a view by the board that her decision was inappropriate, then there were processes that could be followed rather than dragging through the whole process in the Senate any kind of inference that she was not fulfilling her role.

There is interest in this legislation. The government is always surprised by the degree of interest there is in the role of the ABC in the community. Certainly, there is interest among members of the staff of the ABC. We now know that Mr Quentin Dempster has just been successful in an internal election for the staff-elected member of the board. It may well be that he is never able to take up this term, but the volume of interest in the election was very high, and I think that reflects some of the commitment by people who work within the ABC to have this particular process maintained. It is not because of any view that this is somehow some special link that individual staff members have with the board but simply because, once again, the ABC in Australia has a managing process which involves having the staff-elected representative on the board with the same authority and expectation as every other board member, and in many ways that is personally empowering for all the staff.

We know that the government will pursue this particular process but we hope that this will not be the beginning of further attacks on the ABC. As Senator Murray pointed out today in his contribution, we know that there will probably not be support for various amendments that would look at changing the appointment process—numerous times these have gone up and numerous times they have been defeated. We want to maintain the special commitment that the ABC has to the people of Australia and the special privilege of all board members, regardless of how they get there, in maintaining the absolute independence and integrity of the public broadcaster. That is the commitment and the challenge to all members of the board. This diversion down a track, quoting a report that did not consider the ABC specifically—we know that; the evidence is there and I will not go over that again—and grasping the Uhrig report and pretending that that is the only basis for this decision colours the kind of trust that we hope would be in place if we are looking at an independent broadcaster. We have a challenge. I think it is sad that it is coloured by an attack on people who work in such a wonderful organisation. Please, Minister, when it comes to pushing through this legislation, make it very clear that there is no attack on any of the wonderful people who had the privilege of being staff-elected representatives on various ABC boards.

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take up Senator Moore’s invitation. There has never been from me any suggestion that the rationale for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment Bill 2006 is about any particular person. I will in fact amplify that later on in my remarks. I hope I can conclude tonight. If I cannot, obviously I will seek leave to continue my remarks when possible.

I thank honourable senators for their contributions to this debate, whatever their perspectives. I acknowledge that there is a great deal of interest in this matter. The bill before the Senate amends the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 to abolish the staff-elected director and deputy staff-elected director positions. The position of staff-elected director is an unusual one amongst Australian government agency boards. Indeed, this is a significant part of the underpinning rationale for the government’s actions on this matter. In fact, at the ABC, interestingly, the position did not exist until 1975. It was abolished in 1978, reintroduced in 1983 and given legislative backing in 1985. The board of the other national broadcaster, SBS, interestingly and by contrast, does not include a staff-elected director.

The government is moving to reform the structure of the ABC board because the position of a staff-elected director is not consistent with modern principles of corporate governance and tension has surrounded the position on the ABC board for some years. The tension between the expectations of staff electing the director and the proper duties required of a director, I think, is clear. The potential conflict that exists between the duties of the staff-elected director, under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997, to act in good faith in the best interests of the ABC and the appointment of that director as a representative of the ABC staff, elected by them, does of course throw up some conflict.

The election method creates a risk that a staff-elected director will be expected by those who elect him or her to place the interests of staff ahead of the interests of the ABC where those interests are in conflict. In fact, as I understand it, Senator George Campbell said in this chamber that in his view the staff-elected director was there precisely for the purpose of representing the program-making staff. This matter was recognised—that is, the potential conflict and the undesirable consequences that that can give rise to—in the June 2003 Review of the corporate governance of statutory authorities and office holders, otherwise known as the Uhrig review. The review concluded:

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.

On a practical level, this has led to difficulties—and we do not shy away from the fact that there have been difficulties—in respect of board confidentiality. As has been well referred to in this debate and elsewhere, the current staff-elected director felt unable to agree to a revised board protocol that dealt with, amongst other things, the secure handling of confidential board information. This puts the staff-elected director in a conflicted position if there are expectations that confidential information made available to the director through their position on the board will then be made available to constituents, in potential breach of obligations to the ABC. I would have thought that this would be an untenable position for the board.

Tension surrounding the position on the ABC board has, as I have said, been manifest for many years. In 2004, in a very well-publicised example, this led to the resignation of a director of the highest calibre, experience and value to the ABC board, that being Mr Maurice Newman AC. Another former staff-elected director, Mr Henschke, confirmed during the recent Senate committee hearings that staff-elected directors are at times placed under pressure by staff to act in ways that are not consistent with their duties as directors. The government, then, is of the view that there should be no question about the constituency that ABC directors are accountable to. To resolve this problem, the government has decided to take the step of introducing the bill to abolish the staff-elected director positions.

A number of matters have been raised during the debate in the chamber and also in the hearings of the committee that looked at the bill. Senator Conroy, as I understand it, raised the issue that the findings of the Uhrig review that I referred to earlier in my remarks were not applicable to the ABC. The government does not agree with this assertion. The Uhrig review was given a broad brief and its findings are considered to be relevant across government. The terms of reference of the review were clear. I want to put on record a particular part of the review:

A key task was to develop a broad template of governance principles that, subject to consideration by government, might be extended to all statutory authorities and office holders. ... the review was asked to consider the governance structures of a number of specific statutory authorities and best practice corporate governance structures in both the public and private sectors.

Although the Uhrig review itself focused on particular agencies, its principles are considered generally applicable and all statutory authorities are being considered in relation to those findings. The proposed change in the bill is consistent with the Uhrig review’s conclusions about representative appointments. The position is also endorsed by Professor Stephen Bartos, who is a director of the National Institute for Governance. Professor Bartos said in his submission to the Senate committee that the removal of the staff-elected director ‘is consistent with the current corporate governance approach found in most Australian companies and increasingly in public sector bodies’.

Debate interrupted.