So let’s be naïve and pretend that the axing
of the ABC staff-elected director position really is because of concerns about
“governance”. That is, the principal of board confidentiality. We can therefore
expect more sackings from the board soon, because two weeks ago a board member
made inflammatory and treacherous remarks that were quoted in The Bulletin.

This leaking was hardly in the best interests
of the ABC, which all board members are legally obliged to uphold. An investigation
and cull must surely follow. The board meets this Thursday. Watch this space.

But don’t hold your breath. Some
“governance” concerns seem to matter more than others. The whole thing looks
like an exercise in hypocrisy.

The present staff elected director, Ramona
Koval, has, with legal advice, issued
regular reports to staff each with a precede laying down the constraints, but
saying “within those broad legal
parameters, it is my intention to provide you with as much information as
possible.” And so she has.

This has caused great angst at board level,
together with suspicions that Koval leaked board documents to Media Watch in 2004. She has always
denied being responsible for this leak, and the board has failed to censure her
for it, as one would expect if it could be proven.

But in any case these concerns are old and
of longstanding, yet the Government is now moving with speed and urgency to get
rid of Koval and her successors. Why now?

Two likely reasons. First, Quentin Dempster
has announced his intention to run – and he has been a formidably independent
voice, sure to cause more trouble. Second, the board is soon to make its single
most important decision – it’s only chance to directly influence the culture of
the organisation – when it appoints the new managing director.

ABC historian Ken Inglis credits the staff
elected directors as being hugely influential, and crucial to the board
continuing to behave independently, despite successive government stackings.
Inglis says: “When it comes to…who to appoint as
managing director, the staff member is there to be either convinced or
railroaded, and I don’t believe the latter has ever happened.”

Nor would it be likely to happen with
either Dempster or Koval in the seat. The Howard appointees have the numbers in
any case (although it would be wrong to assume they always agree), but getting
rid of vocal insider critics will doubtless make the process more comfortable.