Section 8 of the ABC Act imposes clear and direct legislated responsibilities on the board. It is required to ensure that “the gathering and presentation by the corporation of news and information is accurate and impartial”. The board represents us, the public, the taxpayer and, under law, the members have responsibilities on our behalf.  

Everyone agrees that the ABC’s independence should be guaranteed. Of course it should. That is not the argument. The argument is what role the chairman or the board should play when accuracy and impartiality are in question, particularly when ABC management is not taking action. Independence should not imply a license for sloppy journalism or personal invective; journalism that is not accurate and impartial.

The chairman and board members should responsibly ask whether Ms Alberici’s company tax report equating profit with turnover, among other errors, was accurate. They should responsibly ask if Mr Probyn’s reference to a former prime minister as ‘the most destructive politician of his generation’ was impartial. They should responsibly ask if Triple J’s move of it’s Top 100 from Australia Day was a impartial, or a simply a political statement. They should responsibly ask questions about impartiality when Tom Ballard calls a Senator a four letter expletive.

We the people are asking these questions every day. We expect the board to exercise a degree of control over the ABC on our behalf when it does not meet community standards. The legislation is the expression of these standards. The board members are our trustees as much as they are the guarantors of the independence of the ABC. 

Despite the noise Ms Alberici, Mr Probyn and Mr Ballard are still employed.  Independence has been maintained. On the other hand, accountability remains in question.

Stephen Lusher

Port Macquarie