Reality check on Aunty’s board

There are well-placed observers who will quietly tell you that one of the most opinionated directors the ABC had was, ultimately, one of its least effective. On his own admission, Michael Kroger complained at numerous board meetings - as well as publicly - that the broadcaster lacked non-Left diversity and political balance.

But when Kroger left the board in 2003 after five years, he conceded there's a limit to the influence a single board member can have. Kroger is said to have left the boardroom in frustration and relief.

The point is, political hyperbole aside, the furore over the appointment to the board of Janet Albrechtsen could well be spurred by a paucity of precise knowledge about what the board actually does and how it views its role. Former appointees are wary of public comment but, privately, they're unanimous that directors are not there to micro-manage day-to-day activities.

"Your duty is to act in the best interests of the ABC," says Ian Henschke, the staff-elected director from 2000 to 2002.

"It's not about your own personal interests or opinions. You don't say: 'I don't like that program or that particular presenter.' You're an umpire, not a barracker. If you've got a problem with a program, then you ask the philosophical questions. Are there suitable guidelines in place to ensure that program is fair and reasonable, or whatever? Does it fit the [broadcaster's legislated] charter?

"A director is primarily about governance. There are eight other people in that boardroom. Start pushing a personal opinion and at least one of them is likely to disagree with you. So if you have - say - a thing about perceived bias, your most effective course would be to get on the [board's] editorial policy subcommittee. There's a clear, well-defined governance-accountability role. It isn't about you or your personal opinions."

Albrechtsen isn't, of course, exactly short of opinions, not least about the ABC. A regular Wednesday columnist for The Australian, she has slammed ferociously into the national broadcaster on a wide range of matters. Her tirades include at least one fierce assault on Henschke's successor and her imminent boardroom colleague, Ramona Koval.

Albrechtsen has claimed the ABC is "staff-captured". She has accused it of having an "anti-[George] Bush agenda". She didn't think The 7.30 Report's coverage of the inquest into Thomas (T.J.) Hickey - whose death triggered a huge disturbance among the Aboriginal community last year in Redfern, Sydney - was fair to police.

Rejected in 2002 as a potential presenter for ABC television's Media Watch, Albrechtsen has frequently lashed at the media-monitoring program.

She has accused it of highlighting the perceived shortcomings of the political Right, of going soft on the Left. She claimed MW's former presenter, David Marr, was "ingrained" with pro-Left bias and implied the program's political complexion explained why she hadn't got the presenter's job.

When Marr accused Albrechtsen of lifting an article from London's The Times - without attribution - then altering it to buttress an argument about Muslims' alleged propensity to pack-rape European women, Albrechtsen was indignant.

Whether her indignation managed to convince every single neutral that Marr had been wrong or unfair is another matter and must remain in doubt.

Yet, all but unnoticed by many critics, Albrechtsen passed - perhaps with honours - her first post-appointment public broadcasting test on Monday evening.

Interviewed on ABC Radio's Sunday Profile series by a sharp, watchful Monica Attard, Albrechtsen was taken to - arguably - the most important question for her to answer.

Attard: "In an ideal world, would there still be an ABC?"

Albrechtsen: "I think so. Absolutely. I think there's a really important role for the ABC to play."

Attard: "And what is that?"

Albrechtsen: "Well, I think it's as the charter says. It's to present programs that add to a sense of national identity, and entertain us and reflect the cultural diversity of the Australian community. I think that's absolutely vital and I don't think we can leave that up to commercial stations to do."

Albrechtsen thus put to the sword one of the most serious community criticisms of her appointment: perceptions that she doesn't, fundamentally, believe in public broadcasting.

In the light of Henschke's remarks about individual opinion there's irony in Albrechtsen's appointment in that, effectively, she will replace a former board member whose opinions were sought and highly valued. Maurice Newman, the chairman of the Australian Stock Exchange - and whose opinions included that the ABC is underfunded - resigned last June after failing to persuade Koval to agree to a code of board governance that included a strong degree of confidentiality.

After Koval had been widely accused of leaking board matters to Media Watch and Newman had resigned, Albrechtsen wrote: "Koval's antics reveal the idea of a staff-appointed director, introduced under Gough Whitlam, is a remnant of the Soviet-style workers' collective ... Reform [of the ABC] cannot come soon enough."

Not surprisingly, there are those suggesting a quiet welcoming coffee with Albrechtsen at her first board meeting may not be at the top of Koval's agenda, particularly as Albrechtsen told Attard she doesn't resile from any of her ABC criticisms. Yet, to a degree, she may already have done just that.

Attard: "You join the board still believing the ABC is a biased organisation?"

Albrechtsen: "Biased organisation is, I think, an incorrect way to sum up my views. I've certainly commented on the ABC in relation to particular issues the ABC has dealt with from time to time. And, you know, I've raised concerns on how they presented those issues and facts ..."

Attard: "Can I get you to be a little clearer on this? At this point in time, as you join the board, you don't believe there is systemic bias in the ABC?"

Albrechtsen: "Systemic? I don't know. I'd want to have a closer look at that."

Albrechtsen will find at least a proportion of her six colleagues - two board vacancies remain - are already looking. Howard government appointees such as Ron Brunton (an anthropologist) and John Gallagher (a lawyer) are regarded as conservative. Others, such as chairman Donald McDonald (an arts administrator) and Leith Boully (the director of a pastoral company), are thought of as moderates.

But, given the Coalition's nine-year track record, the two vacancies are unlikely to be filled by Left-leaning radicals. Thus Albrechtsen's may not be quite the fiercely dissenting lone voice that some imagine and fear.