Apr 12, 2012

ABC staff-elected board member in exile: Dempster waits on Conroy

Quentin Dempster easily won the ABC staff-elected director position in 2006 but, almost seven years later, is yet to take up his seat on the board, writes David Salter, veteran journalist and former Media Watch EP.

King Zog of Albania spent a record 54 years in exile. Quentin Dempster, the ABC television presenter and journalist, must be beginning to know how he felt. Dempster easily won the ABC staff-elected director position in 2006 but, almost seven years later, is yet to take up his seat on the board. The background to this saga includes an excursion into the vindictive ideological zeal of the Howard government in its dying days. But it also demonstrates the apparent incapacity -- or unwillingness -- of Labor to then restore a sensible element in the governance of our national public broadcaster. The notion of letting the ABC staff elect someone to serve as a commissioner (later director) was a classic Whitlam-era brainwave. The first successful candidate, in 1975, was Marius Webb, who campaigned on the slogan "the board only knows what it's told" -- and defeated the late Richard Carleton in the process. Soon after the Fraser government abolished the position. Then Hawke -- ever-mindful of his trade union support -- resurrected it a decade later. For the next 20 years a succession of committed and well-credentialed ABC staffers filled the Staff Elected Director (SED) role. Their contribution to board decision-making was often crucial. Not only were they a reliable conduit for staff concerns, but they could also offer the government-appointed directors useful practical knowledge of broadcasting practice. Senior management hated this informed scrutiny, but there’s no doubt SED intervention saved the ABC from many potential disasters. All that came to a hasty full stop in 2006 when Howard's last minister for communications, Senator Helen Coonan, rammed through an amendment to the ABC Act that abolished the post. Outgoing SED Ramona Koval’s rather fractious term was about to expire, and the Coalition wanted to have that chair at the board table removed before the newly elected director, Quentin Dempster, had a chance to sit in it. The reduction of Dempster to director-in-exile status made good sense for the Howard government and its conservative majority of ABC board appointments. He'd been a tireless anti-commercialism, pro-independence polemicist who never hesitated to exploit his public-speaking invitations to champion those causes. Worse, he was a unionist. In the run-up to the Kevin 07 federal campaign, the Commonwealth Public Sector Union -- which represents the ABC’s non-journalistic staff -- extracted a promise from Labor’s shadow minister for communications Stephen Conroy that, if elected, it would restore the SED position. That principle was confirmed in the ALP platform. But we’re still waiting. Why? Well, the wheels of government turn exceeding slow, especially if that government doesn’t command a majority in the Senate. Eventually, in October 2009, the promised amendment to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act was appended as schedule two of a bill to establish a merit-based appointment process for the appointment of non-executive directors to the boards of the ABC and SBS (another Labor election promise). That bill passed the House of Representatives in 2010 but the Senate -- where the government was then at the mercy of the independents -- shuffled the legislation off to a committee. Last year the committee duly recommended the re-establishment of the staff-elected directorship, but the statute -- the National Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 -- does not to appear on the Senate notice paper for the first day of the budget session (Tuesday May 8). Word from Canberra is that Nick Xenophon is still fiddling about with some of the clauses dealing with the merit-based selection process. The Greens support the re-establishment of the SED so the bill is sure to pass -- eventually. Yet when, after seven years, Conroy honours Labor’s promise there will still be a final barbed-wire fence for the successful candidate to climb. In 2004, during a period of particular paranoia about the SED undermining board solidarity, then ABC chair Donald McDonald introduced an extraordinary "ABC board protocol" which he required every director to sign. Sub-headed Recognition of Responsibility of Common Purpose, this strange document felt the need to declare that the duties of all directors were to the organisation as a whole. Section 1.3 states:
"No duty is owed by any director to any individual or group. It follows that directors owe their obligations to the ABC and not to any person or organisation who may have nominated them, or to any other individual or group."
This was a bizarre attempt to remove any concept of directors acting independently -- and you don’t need to be a lawyer to understand who those words were aimed at. (In any case, the SED is not, and has never been, a staff-representative position. Election is just another method of appointment, and the SED has the same duties and responsibilities as every other director.) Nevertheless the noxious, and probably unenforceable, protocol is still an official board document and its legitimacy is even acknowledged in the explanatory memorandum that accompanies the bill to reinstate the SED position. Why does this matter? Well, when the legislation finally passes there will be a new election in which all 4000 ABC staff, including management, are entitled to vote. Dempster intends to run, and is the overwhelming favourite to reclaim the board seat he won by a 4-1 majority in 2006. He’s no fan of the protocol, so it will be interesting to see if new ABC chair Jim Spigelman asks him to sign it. My guess is that both men will pretend it doesn't exist.

Free Trial

You've hit members-only content.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

5 thoughts on “ABC staff-elected board member in exile: Dempster waits on Conroy

  1. zut alors

    If I recall correctly, former Premier Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, went out of his way to even be in the same room as Dempster. There must be something about him to which conservatives are allergic…and that can’t be a bad thing.

  2. Holden Back

    Quentin’s reporting helping to prompt the Fitzgerald Inquiry, might have had something to do with it, Zut? Just a wild surmise.

  3. Ramona Koval

    On the matter of my “fractious” terms as Staff Elected Director on the ABC Board,
    just a reminder that I never signed any such document, despite what you describe as a “requirement” from the then Chairman.

    I had excellent (pro bono) legal advice from very senior legal people that such a demand was unenforceable and possibly illegal, going against the very spirit of the legal requirement for the independence of Board Directors, no matter how they want to dress it up in “protocol ” terms.

    If I could still vote for Quentin Dempster I would!

    Ramona Koval

  4. zut alors

    Holden, Joh must’ve had a portend of things to come as he was averse to Dempster years prior to the Fitzgerald excitement.

    I was living in Queensland for the latter part of Joh’s reign and Dempster vs Joh was a regular drawcard on ABC TV.

  5. Warren Joffe

    If I had been one of Donald McDonald’s fellow board members I would have probably replied “Of course I don’t dissent in principle Donald from the well-established notion that the duties of directors are to the corporation as a whole (while recognising that such a notion isn’t entirely self-explanatory in all circumstances) not primarily to the source of votes which elects them. However, I think “primarily” might be important because it is not impossible that one might be able to carry out duties to both quite properly.” I wouldn’t have signed his document. However…..

    Would David Salter please explain why the document was as objectionable as he thinks? Considered as a reminder that directors shouldn’t push the interests of those who elect them separately from the good of the whole it seems unobjectionable, even if, as I indicate above, not entirely clear in its every detailed application. For example, making sure that the staff’s views – preferably a properly described range of views – are accurately conveyed to the board and their reasoning explained is surely part of a staff elected directors duties.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details