Judith
Sloan at Catallaxy makes a good case with regard to our taxpayer-funded
Lefty-supporting ABC. It’s definitely a
closed shop and of the opinion it is above some avenues of FOI disclosure. We are talking about the public
interest. I think we have a right to
know what the likes of Faine (who is the subject of a Complaint lodged by me
recently to the ABC's Audience & Consumer Affairs arm. Remember – the ABC self-adjudicates, so I am expecting
great results in relation to that Complaint!
The ABC avoids
extraneous inquisition and considering its activity in mainstream media on a
number of levels, that’s not good enough in 2012/13. Go Judith!
Reblogged from Catallaxy.
………………………………………………………………….
It is
quite a few years since I was on the board of the ABC – yes, I know what you
are thinking. Fat lot of good you did, Judith. And you are probably
right.
But I
just love the current efforts of the ABC to resist any meaningful disclosure of
the pay packages of the top earning ABC ‘talent’. I hesistate to use the
term worker or employee; certainly, in my day, quite a lot of the ‘talent’ was
employed through service companies, which also employed members of their
families. Even as a board member, it was difficult to extract any real
information about the remuneration arrangements and levels of the radio and
television presenters.
And
yes, employing these people through service companies did probably make the ABC
party to a form of tax avoidance, although the presenters would declare that
they didn’t have any right of tenure as most ABC employees do. Mind you,
I always thought that a number of these presenters were engaging in a high
degree of hypocrisy by publicly banging on about the evils of individual
contracts and WorkChoices while taking full advantage of individual contracts
themselves.
THE
ABC could be forced to disclose details of the pay packets of its top
broadcasters and producers at programs such as Media Watch, Four Corners and
Mornings with Jon Faine after it lost two appeals to block access to the
information.
The
national broadcaster received $1 billion in government funding in the last
financial year and spent $486 million on wages and superannuation.
But
the ABC does not want to provide a breakdown of who its biggest earners are.
The
network lost its most recent appeal just before Christmas when the
Administrative Appeals Tribunal ruled against it, rejecting the ABC’s arguments
and saying some evidence it had put forward was not relevant and “of little
assistance”.
A
Freedom of Information request was lodged more than two years ago by the Herald
and Weekly Times, seeking access to documents “dealing with salaries, or any
payments” paid to program makers working on 13 programs, including those listed
above, for the financial year ending 2010.
The
ABC refused to hand over the documents, which include individual employment
contracts, Australian Workplace Agreements, Individual Transitional Employment
Agreements, pay slips and other “payment records”.
According
to the ABC’s annual report for the 2012 financial year, 401 employees earned
more than $150,000 each – an increase from 312 the previous year.
The
ABC employs the equivalent of 4603 full-time employees.
You
really have to laugh. According to the ABC Annual Report:
The ABC recognises its
responsibility to the Australian people as a publicly-funded broadcaster, and adopts high standards of corporate governance.
Really? If it were to adopt
high standards of corporate governance, it would not be fudging its remeration
report, which is pretty much what was required of companies 15 years ago.
All that can be found out are the earnings of the top six officers within
bands and note that the term ‘officers’ excludes all presenters.
And
openness and transparency as part of high standards of corporate
governance? I don’t think so. Take these statements from the Annual
Report.
The Freedom of Information Act 1982 (“FOI Act”) gives the public the
right to access documents held by the ABC. During the past year, the ABC
received 30 requests for access to documents under the FOI Act. One request was
granted, four were granted in part, 20 were refused and one was withdrawn. Four
requests were still being processed at the end of the financial year. Of the 20 requests
which were refused, 16 were outside the scope of the FOI Act. Part IIof Schedule 2 of the FOI Act
specifically excludes documents relating to the ABC’s program material from the
operation of the FOI Act.
Prior to the launch of the
revised ABC Editorial Policies in April 2011 (see page 85),
the ABC Editorial Policies included an aim to respond to
complaints within 28 days. Between 1 July 2010 and 30 June 2011, ABC Audience
and Consumer Affairs responded directly to 17 241 audience contacts.Of these,
11 833 (68.6%) received responseswithin 28 days.
In
other words, use every excuse under the sun to withhold information from FOI
requests and dither away while ‘handling’ complaints. (Recall the
Finkelstein suggestion that complaints be handled within days … sure.) Note
also that less than 10 per cent of complaints are ‘upheld’.
I had
also forgotten what an incredibly SELF-CONGRATULATORY organisation the ABC
is. If anything, it seems worse than it was during my tenure on the
board. (Incidentally, the staff’s attitude to the board was completely
dismissive, along the lines … well, you are here for a short time, we are here
for ever, so we will ignore you.)
The Strategic Plan 2010 –13 commits the ABC to striving to
maintain its leadership position as aninnovative and independent media
organisationserving the needs of all Australians. It sets out six high-level
strategic goals for the ABC:
Audience focused—to provide a range of mediaexperiences to meet the needs and
expectations of diverse audiences
High quality—to consistently deliver content which reflects the ABC’s
commitment to quality, independence and high editorial standards
Innovative—to pursue new ideas, opportunities and partnerships, and grow
our capabilities for the future
Values based—to demonstrate ABC Values in every aspect of our work
Efficient—to maximise the efficient and effective use of resources
Responsible—to be visible and active in the community, setting high
standards of social,environmental and regulatory responsibility.
But here’s the rub – WHEN THE ABC MARKS ITSELF ON
THESE CRITERIA (sub-categories, included), THERE IS NOT ONE AREA IN WHICH IT
DOES NOT REGARD ITS PERFORMANCE AS EITHER SATISFACTORY OR
OUTSTANDING. I am
not making this up.
Where
do you begin?
Another thought – gross misrepresentation by the ABC in its Annual Report.
“In
real terms, the ABC’s operational revenue has declined over time.”
Actually,
not since 1997-98, it has not. And there were special reasons for the
high figures in the mid 1980s.
And
note the use of operational revenue. The government is for ever kicking
in extras here and there, including of coure the now uncontestible Australia
Network, which are not counted as operational revenue.
