Additional Comments
Australian Greens Senator Scott Ludlam
The Australian Greens substantially agree with the views
expressed in the majority report. As a truly independent source of unbiased
journalism and cultural activity, the ABC has a vital role to play in
Australian society. A healthy, functional democracy depends upon access to
reliable information and critical analysis, especially in areas that make the
Government of the day and other powerful vested interests uncomfortable.
Further, it is not only the reality of independence that is
important, but the public perception of it. If the Australian public are
suspicious that the work of the ABC is being tailored to suit a partisan
political agenda, they will be disinclined to trust its reporting and much of
the value of the ABC will be lost.
Given this, and the history of political interference in the
work of the ABC outlined on pages six to nine of the majority report, the
present bill is very welcome and deserving of support. The majority's recommendations
are aimed at further strengthening the bill, and I support recommendations one
and two unequivocally.
My primary point of departure from the majority arises with
regard to recommendation three. I accept that many former politicians and
political staffers may be capable of making a valuable contribution to the
board of the ABC, particularly if they are vetted through a robust merit-based
selection process, and I acknowledge the CPSU's argument that 'political
appointments' are not necessarily the same thing as 'appointments of
politicians'. However, in my view these arguments are outweighed by the
following considerations:
- There are obvious reasons for suspecting former politicians and
staffers of political partisanship, even though they do not have an exclusive
claim to that dubious distinction.
- Of the range of potentially partisan applicants, this cohort is
readily identified and excluded.
- There is a significant problem of public perception with this
cohort, especially given that the proposed selection process leaves a certain
degree of executive discretion intact. The Communications Minister or Prime
Minister would ultimately personally appoint these former parliamentarians,
potentially from their own party, all the while attempting to reassure the
public that the appointment is not politically-motivated.
- The group excluded by these provisions of the bill is small
enough that there will be no difficulty recruiting appropriately-qualified
board members without them.
Recommendation four is the only other place that I arrive at
a slightly different conclusion to the majority. I agree that the laudable aim
of depoliticising ABC board appointments is further advanced by ensuring that
the nomination panel is not simply appointed at the open discretion of the
Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C). The
inclusion of the Merit Protection Commissioner on the panel is a good idea and
I endorse it. However, that still leaves the head of PM&C appointing
potentially three of four panel members.
The CPSU's suggestion (at page 9 of their submission)
provides a more comprehensive solution to the problem of establishing a
depoliticised nomination panel. I recommend melding their suggestion with
majority recommendation four to provide for a three-person nomination panel
chaired by the Merit Protection Commissioner, with the other two members being
the Secretary of the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital
Economy and the chair of the ABC Board (or another board member nominated by
the board if the Chair is unavailable). This has the same advantages as the
CPSU's recommendation, in that the panel would be chaired by someone with
expertise in merit-based decision-making and a minority of members (one) might
be vulnerable to public perception of a pre-disposition for selection decisions
that advance the political agenda of the incumbent Government.
I support majority recommendations five and six for the
reasons given in the majority report. The perception that the position of
staff-elected director is at odds with the responsibilities of the board
clearly arises from the mistaken belief that the function of this position is
to represent the interests of staff. Evidence to the Committee makes it plain
that this is not the case, and the position brings useful operational knowledge
into the boardroom.
My final recommendations pick up on useful suggestions from
Friends of the ABC (FABC) and the CPSU that would serve to further limit the
scope for politicised selection decisions. Firstly, FABC suggested limiting
the shortlist that will be presented to the Communications Minister or Prime
Minister to three, rather than 'at least three', as a longer list obviously
provides greater scope for a more politically-palatable selection to be made.
Secondly, the CPSU suggested that if the executive wishes to appoint a
candidate from outside the shortlist, that candidate must be someone who has
been assessed by the selection panel. Further, the executive must table the
panel's reasons for not shortlisting that person alongside the executive's
reasons for selecting him/her. This will help to ensure that the Government
only disregards the results of the independent, merit-based selection process
where it can make a persuasive public argument for its decision.
Recommendation 1
That the Government disregards majority recommendation 3 and
sustains an absolute ban on former politicians and senior political staffers
being appointed to the board of the ABC
Recommendation 2
That the Government builds on majority recommendation 4 and amends
the bill to provide for a three person nomination panel chaired by the Merit
Protection Commissioner, with the other members being the Chair of the ABC
Board (or another board member nominated by the board) and the Secretary of the
Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy.
Recommendation 3
That the Government amends the bill to provide that the executive
selects board members from a shortlist of three, rather than 'at least three'.
Recommendation 4
That the Government amends the bill to provide that if the
executive appoints a board member from outside the shortlist supplied by the
selection panel, the appointee must have been assessed by the panel and the
executive must table the panel's reasons for not shortlisting the person
alongside the executive's reasons for appointing him/her.
Recommendation 5
That the Government act on majority recommendations 1, 2, 5 and 6
as they are presented in the majority report.
Senator Scott Ludlam
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page