Mr Peter N Varghese AO

Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Dear Secretary,

On 31 August 2012 then Minister for Foreign Affairs the Honourable Bob Carr announced that the Government had entered into a funding agreement with the ABC for the ongoing delivery of the Australia Network.

The Department’s Annual Report refers to “the Australian Government's contract with the ABC for the Australia Network Service”.

The accounts show the department paid the ABC $21.9M last financial year.

The current DFAT Budget Statement, Program 1.3, Public Information Services and Public Diplomacy tells us why you pay our money to the ABC. 

The ABC is contracted to deliver part of the Department’s Program Objective:  

To project a positive and contemporary image of Australia and promote a clear understanding of government policies.

That is the purpose to which you put our $20 million.

The Australia Network News headline, or lead story for Saturday, 23 November was:

Opposition labels Government’s Asylum Seeker Briefings a “weekly embarrassment”

And for Sunday, 24 November:

“Climate deadlock broken” a report on the purported agreement to an “ambitious climate pact to combat global warming” at Warsaw, a UN conference to which Australia did not send a ministerial representative.

Why are you paying the ABC?  

Have you advised it of a default or breach of our contract with it?

This is an open letter and I would like to publish your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Michael Smith

www.michaelsmithnews.com

UPDATED WITH REPLY

Janet Albrechtsen was a director of the board of the ABC between 2005 and 2010.   Mark Scott's appointment was announced by then Chairman of the Board Donald MacDonald in May 2006.

Janet's called on Scott to resign in her column in today's The Australian newspaper.  But Janet has more to say about the board than Scott:

The seriousness of the ABC's decision to publish criminally obtained information that involved such profoundly damaging and entirely foreseeable risks also raises questions about the ABC board.

Did Scott raise the issue with the board, to whom he is responsible? If not, why not? What about ABC chairman Jim Spigelman? Was he included in the decision? If not, why not? If yes, did he consider the ramifications for the public interest?

What is Spigelman's view about Scott's response to questions in senate estimates last week that it was in the public interest to reveal information about Australian intelligence gathering in Indonesia even though he knew that it would "cause some difficulties with the Australian-Indonesian relationship in the short term". Or did Spigelman do what former ABC chairmen lacking spine have too often done - let the MD and therefore the staff - run the show without prudent board oversight?

So far, the only public comment Spigelman has made has been a letter to The Australian about the "considerable personal distress" this newspaper caused to his executive assistant by publishing an incorrect salary figure. Compared with the breach of national security perpetrated by the ABC, his focus on a matter of staff welfare is a disappointing demonstration of where the chairman's priorities lie. A responsible board must surely have concerns about Scott's stewardship of the ABC on this matter. Scott is appointed by and subject to removal by the board.

As section 13 of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act sets out, the managing director holds office subject to terms and conditions determined by the board. The reckless publication of criminally obtained information with the predictable and escalating consequences now unfolding make his position untenable. In short, the ABC board needs to look at its responsibilities here - and its culpability in this matter.

As a member of the ABC board for five years between 2005 and 2010, I can attest to the fact that it has a disappointing history of being ineffective. I can attest to the fact that information that ought to have been provided to the board was not.

And I can attest to the fact that, unlike commercial boards that work together, the ABC board is too often a numbers game. If you don't have the board numbers then the status quo at the ABC becomes untouchable. Moreover, if the chairman's main aim is to be loved by staff, then the MD is untouchable.

Instead of providing genuine oversight and counsel to management, the board gets bogged down drafting policies, codes of conduct and other fine-sounding documents. It's a management driven make-work gig for board members to make them feel important. It justifies them jumping on planes, travelling business class, checking into nice hotels and turning up for a fine lunch at Ultimo - all at taxpayer expense. Meanwhile the focus is taken off what really matters - the output of the ABC. The output this past week by the ABC has let taxpayers down. Badly.

How can this simply pass by without further comment?  If it were a corporate CEO who was dealing with criminally obtained material there'd be no further questions.

Dear S,

Thank you for your correspondence regarding the ABC.

Australia’s media, like media environments all over the world, are experiencing great, disruptive change of unprecedented speed and scale. In these challenging times our national broadcasters are more important than ever and the Australian Government recognises the important role the ABC plays in Australia’s cultural, economic and democratic way of life.

While the Australian government provides an overall level of funding for the ABC, it has no power to direct the ABC in relation to operational matters. Parliament has guaranteed this independence to ensure that what is broadcast is free of political interference.

Internal ABC programming decisions are the responsibility of the ABC Board and Executive. One of the ABC’s statutory obligations is to be accurate and impartial in its news and current affairs programmesaccording to the recognised standards of objective journalism.

While the ABC has editorial independence, it is accountable to the Parliament through annual reports, corporate plans, financial and performance audits, and appearances before Parliamentary Committees. Unlike the former government, the Coalition will not seek to assert control over the media to the extent the previous government did with its perverse attempt at media reform.

The Government has stated its commitment to maintaining the quality, performance and efficiency of the ABC and to ensure that the ABC fulfils its Charter.

The Government has no plans to either privatise or reduce funding to the ABC, however the Government has established a National Commission of Audit (NAOC) to review the scope, efficiency and functions of Government. The Commission has a broad remit to examine all areas of government expenditure, which would include all government funded agencies. The ABC, along with other government agencies, has been invited to make a submission to the NAOC.

If you wish to raise your concerns directly with the ABC, and I encourage you to do so, you can lodge a complaint at http://about.abc.net.au/talk-to-the-abc/lodge-a-complaint/. This will ensure that the ABC is directly aware of your concerns and has an opportunity to respond to you. If you are not satisfied with the ABC’s response, you may refer the matter to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) for investigation. Information about making a complaint to the ACMA can be found on the ACMA’s website: www.acma.gov.au/Citizen/Take-action/Complaints/Broadcast-complaints/complaints-about-the-abc-or-sbs. 

Thank you for raising this matter with me.

Regards,

Malcolm Turnbull

The Extreme Centrist writes in invisible ink, developed only by ironing the paper.   Do not apply the Sunbeam surge of steam to your computer screen.

Michael,

The Age has a wonderful scoop about how we spy on the rest of the world. For some reason they have jumped onto the Edward Snowdon bandwagon.

Several days ago I posted a comment here with a link from Nautilus (progressive and informative people).  My comment mentioned Shoal Bay Receiving Station. This information is all publicly available. I think some industrious Fairfax investigators are trawling your site for tips. The secret information they have published is public. At least they are not compromising our national security like somebody else who was born in the same country as Snowdon.

Here are 2 of the sites Fauxfacts mention. There appears to be something about spies and swimming pools.

The bulk of our internet traffic goes to USA via the great southern cable. (Why am I telling a telecommunications guy?) Anyway, apparently the kiwis read all our emails and look out for catch phrases like ‘I love Osama’, and ‘9/11 was a CIA job.’ Here, they put on black balaclavas and tap on bedroom windows.

Here are some other places in Australia where spies snoop, that Fairfax don’t know about yet.

No, these are not crop circles.  In the 80’s we had a swimming pool. It was down the road from the snake pit opposite the RAP (provider of weekend prophylactic protection from unwanted romantic complications).

And here we had to have our personal swimming pool. The other water had too many big lizards in it.

You can nearly always tell where we have been.

I wonder if these industrious investigators will come out with some more gems about a very large covert spy ring, which only exists to protect them and their way of life.

ENDS

Thank you doubleO centrist.

Here is a link to my full and complete interview with David Rosenberg the former NSA operative at the Pine Gap purpose built Indo-Chinese,  Indo and Chinese leaders-phone interception facility.

It is hosted on the 2UE website.   If you go there and listen, it would be nice of you to leave a comment on the comment form.   Their internet statistics people will have a fit if more than 6 people do.

PS - to listen to the whole interview click here.   And be sure to leave a comment here.

I will not be lectured by the enemies of multi-culturalism about Jock Tamson Bairns trooser-based Scots cultural sensitivities on this website, I will not.

Pants-down, troos off, kilts on and just zip your anti-Scots racist rants please (snookered the luvvies Jock!)

This is the Australian Professional and Ethical Standards Board's Code for Professional Accountants.

It's big.   Comprehensive.  Verging on the formidable.   And crystal clear.

290.3 In this section, the term(s):  “audit,” “Audit Team,” “Audit Engagement,” “Audit Client” and “audit report” includes review, Review Team, Review Engagement, Review Client and review report; and  “Firm” includes Network Firm, except where otherwise stated.

A Conceptual Framework Approach to Independence

290.4 In the case of Audit Engagements, it is in the public interest and, therefore, required by this Code of Ethics, that members of Audit Teams, Firms and, Network Firms shall be independent of Audit Clients.

290.5 The objective of this section is to assist Firms and members of Audit Teams in applying the conceptual framework approach described below to achieving and maintaining Independence.

290.6 Independence comprises:

Independence of Mind
The state of mind that permits the expression of a conclusion without being affected by influences that compromise professional judgment, thereby allowing an individual to act with integrity and exercise objectivity and professional scepticism.

Independence in Appearance
The avoidance of facts and circumstances that are so significant that a reasonable and informed third party would be likely to conclude, weighing all the specific facts and circumstances, that a Firm’s, or a member of the Audit Team’s, integrity, objectivity or professional scepticism has been compromised.

A well credentialled expert practitioner points out:

KPMG accepted an assignment which involved in part examining whether there had been evidence of any political interference. An approach to this which was independent in appearance would involve KPMG designing its own tests to enable it to form an opinion.

It would not involve asking interviewees to determine for themselves what amounted to interference.

It would not involve accepting a letter (with minor modifications) written by one of the persons who was to be the subject of enquiries ie O’Neill.

It would not involve sending that letter to a list of persons basically suggested by the same person.

The question is whether this is so significant that a reasonable person would form the view referred to.

KPMG really had no way of determining whether such interference occurred unless someone had been stupid enough to leave a written record or admitted it.

The purpose of the exercise was clearly either to provide a basis for asserting no interference had occurred or, as you have hinted as a cover to extract information from Lawler that might prove useful in the action against Jackson, or both. KPMG should have been aware of the first purpose and the difficulties that would be faced by it on this issue.

The problem has been caused by accepting this aspect as a specific area on which to report and then confining its conclusions to the information gained from the key word search, letters and interviews.

Given the other findings of the report the question of whether there were deliberate delays remains open.

Here are two different ways that two people within Fair Work Australia dealt with Vice President Lawler and the allegations Craig Thomson made against him.   Thomson spoke on 21 May.

Bernadette O'Neill wrote this email on Saturday 26 May.

At the same time, Justice Ian Ross was preparing to deliver an address to the same Senate Estimates hearing.

Given Justice Ross's statement, it is beyond belief that KPMG persisted with Bernadette O'Neill's instruction to gain, without warrant, access to VP Lawler's iPhone, computer, email and sundry other records.   Given that from September 2011 O'Neill had been personally responsible for the investigation into Thomson, it is impossible for this review of her investigation to be classed as independent of her - she was the person directing the reviewers.

What fun!  

The Five told BamBam that someone had been spying on him.   Everyone pretended it was Tony!

Young Bill told Tony that he wanted to be friends!   But Young Bill was still secretly friends with Tanya and Penny and Stephen.   The Five had a simply splendid time following people and holding flashlights to make notes in their new spiral-bound pads.

Anthony borrowed his uncle Umberto's suit and thought he was ever so grown-up.  

They all laughed and laughed as he made an ever so good pretend businessman.  

But secretly Anthony was upset that Young Bill got to be Tony's pretend pal.

In the end the rain came down and they ran along inside for tea.   Young Bill's mum had cakes and scones.   She made special medals from chocolate wrappers and ribbon for the Five and they had a pretend ceremony!

Everyone agreed, Tanya and Young Bill were ever-so-good at pretending not to know anything.

Next week, Chris brings new fun and a different colour tie and hair to the pals!

While Mrs Bishop asks who took all the surpluses.   Old Bill from number 35 knows exactly who he's going to blame!

That which Julia lumbered us with, Tony hath taken away.