Comment by Peter Reid
Was Liberal powerbroker Michael Kroger appointed to the ABC board to keep a watchful eye on the national broadcaster in the run-up to the coming federal election? Opposition leader Kim Beazley thinks so.
Communications minister Senator Richard Alston insists Kroger's appointment will help redress what he claims is a pro-Labor imbalance on the ABC board.
Mindboggling hypocrisy on both sides of politics has marked the bunfight over Kroger's appointment. Getting political cronies a seat on the ABC board has been par for the course by both major parties for a long time.
"Labor has turned party political appointments into an art form for years", Alston claims. But if Kroger's appointment isn't party political, what is it?
Wasn't he a former president of the Victorian Liberal Party? A party member for 20 years? As well as being a close friend of treasurer Peter Costello, he was a one-time lobbyist for media mogul Kerry Packer.
Moreover, Kroger, a lawyer and merchant banker, has openly acknowledged that his appointment to the ABC was political. "Having a board representative who is clearly seen to be an ally of the federal government can dent the criticisms of bias from which the ABC suffers", he said.
Not surprisingly, Kroger's appointment has incensed Labor. Labor communications spokesperson Chris Schacht says Kroger's role will be to cow the ABC into not criticising the federal government. "All ABC supporters", he says, "should be aghast at the appointment".
The Keating government, of which Schacht was a member, gave the nod to the former Labor premier of South Australia, John Bannon, to join the ABC board, along with Rod Cameron, a former ALP pollster. And let's not forget former ABC managing director David Hill's recent disclosure that he's been a Labor Party member for yonks.
The Australian Democrats point out that it is just as unacceptable for the Coalition to make political appointments to the ABC as it was for Labor.
Since the ABC's supervisory board can and does exert considerable influence on the national broadcaster's operations and programming, isn't the choice of appointees too important to be left to a single minister?
Why not subject such appointments to parliamentary scrutiny? An all-party Senate committee proposed this at an inquiry into ABC management and operations in l995. Who chaired that committee? None other than Senator Alston.
The committee recommended that ABC board nominees appear before a parliamentary committee so that their credentials could be scrutinised prior to appointment. While the committee would not have the power of veto, it would thoroughly examine the suitability of nominees, and make a recommendation to the minister. If the minister failed to accept the advice, he/she would have to explain to parliament.
The Australian Democrats supports such a proposal, as does the ABC staff union.
At the next federal poll, expected this year, there would be nothing to stop Labor or the Coalition pledging to adopt parliamentary scrutiny of ABC board nominees.
It is anyone's guess whether Beazley and Howard would be game enough to give it a go. But if they did, it would be a step toward curbing blatant cronyism. Then, when we hear pollies vowing to preserve the independence of our ABC, we might believe they are fair dinkum.