| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
  Jonathan Shier, ABC Managing Director October 29, 2000 Reporter : Laurie Oakes  TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW WITH JONATHAN SHIER, ABC MANAGING DIRECTOR.PRESENTER - JIM WALEY : While our cover story was going to air, it was viewed in our Sydney studio by the managing director of the ABC, Jonathan Shier, and Mr Shier has stayed with us to answer the serious questions raised in our report. He's talking now with Sunday's political editor, Laurie Oakes. REPORTER - LAURIE OAKES: Morning, Jim. Mr Shier, welcome to the program. JONATHAN SHIER - ABC MANAGING DIRECTOR: Morning, Laurie. REPORTER: You're copping it from all sides at the moment. How does it feel to be so popular? SHIER: It's a big issue, Laurie. We've got to get more money. You know, I'm very focussed on what I have to do, to the extent that that is topical, that's valuable. Clearly the issue of ABC funding needs higher priority. I mean, we didn't get a hundred and ninety-four million in February. It didn't score much of a mention in most of the papers. Now that we're moving three million from news and current affairs into basically new media, it's much talked about. So we've at least raised the issue higher up in the agenda. REPORTER: Right. Well, let me ask you about the key issue of political independence that John Lyons raised. The John Howard incident and SeaChange. Is there going to be an inquiry into that? SHIER: Well, I mean, you know, I can understand why Channel Nine doesn't have a lot of interest in a revitalised ABC but let's just deal with those three issues. I mean, the first one, in relation to the Fraser speech: that went to air ... it went to air, in no way was it altered. My director of television is very forthright. I'm sure if she wanted to stop it, she could've stopped it. I heard nothing about it until today's program. In relation to The Games, I'm on the record as saying it was a wonderful show ... REPORTER: Mm. SHIER: I thought it was marvellous and before the Olympics we actually repeated it. So to the extent there's some suggestion that some of its content was unacceptable we then went ahead and repeated it. And ... REPORTER: But was there a rebuke delivered? SHIER: Well, if there was, it wasn't from my office. So ... REPORTER: Are you interested in finding out? SHIER: Well, I am. Well, I'm interested obviously after today to establish what the facts were, but it hadn't come across my desk. REPORTER: And if the facts are as presented by John Lyons, is that a breach of the charter? SHIER: Well, I don't ... I don't ... I'd have to really establish what a rebuke is ... REPORTER: Mm. SHIER: ... and I'd like to know why anyone would suggest there'd be a rebuke. I mean, in the case of the Phillip Adams' piece, which, you know, has been much talked about, I mean, Phillip, apparently, often has been discussing his own demise. I mean, I have to be honest with you, in the time I've been on the board we've never discussed Phillip Adams. I mean it might upset Phillip that we've never discussed Phillip, but we haven't discussed him. REPORTER: But his point was that down the line managers are reading the wind, seeing a political problem and acting on it. SHIER: Yeah, well, you know, to the extent that people are, sort of, imagining things, I can't stop them doing that. But there is absolutely no evidence and I don't believe there's anything in today's program which suggests there's any real evidence of any interference at all. And certainly, you know, I've learnt something from today's program of supposed influence and I will, out of curiosity, find about it. But I, you know, would reject wholeheartedly that there's been any such thing. REPORTER: But surely you can do something about it. I mean, surely if the managing director stresses the independence of the ABC and reassures the staff that that will be guarded, that would stop them imagining things if that's what's happened? SHIER: Well, Laurie, you know, our independence is absolutely fundamental. I mean, maybe I'm taking it for granted that people accept that. But it goes to our absolute core values. I mean, the ABC is trusted and respected because of its independence. Clearly if you want to do any injury to the ABC, you will challenge whether that independence has been maintained. What I'm saying to you is, despite Mr Lyons's desire to suggest otherwise, there is no real evidence that that has ever taken place and it will not take place while I'm managing director of the ABC. REPORTER: Well, what would you do if, say, John Howard - the prime ministerial John Howard - phoned you up and said, look, I don't like something, fix it? SHIER: Well, first of all, that has never happened. Secondly, I wouldn't expect it to happen, and thirdly, it would depend what was said. I mean, I obviously would have to respond to him along the lines what you'd expect me to, which is, well, you know, what is the suggestion, what is the accusation. As far as I'm concerned, the Prime Minister is like any other person who would object to what's on the content of the ABC. We get a large volume of mail. We respond to everybody. We're meticulous about that. It's no easy task because of the volume of both oral and written correspondence that we have, but it would be treated like any other, you know, comment to us and our approach to our editorial control remains the same. REPORTER: So would you ... would you have the gumption, I suppose, to tell the Prime Minister to take a running jump? SHIER: Well, I hope he doesn't put me in that position. But, you know, in relation to multi-channelling, I think it's pretty clearly on the record that I reacted very strongly to the view that the ABC should not have access to multi-channelling in digital. It's also, I think, clearly on the record that if it had not been for the Australian Democrats and for Labor support I would not have it now. And one of the issues now is having got the spectrum, I'm now making it clear I need the money, and that's ... that's a battle, if you like, that I'm fighting and a lot of people to say to me, the requests for more money, after you've had a triennial funding agreement only recently denied, is a brave course of action. So, yes, there is an issue there that I'm having to stand up to it. REPORTER: Now, ABC staff are planning a public campaign against your proposed changes. The staff meetings in Melbourne and Brisbane have passed motions of no confidence in you. Are you going to listen to what the staff are saying? SHIER: Well, Laurie, first of all I'm not sure that they have. I think Brisbane did, I'm not sure whether Melbourne did. But, you know, to paint this as all staff I think is, you know, is misleading. I'm not saying there isn't understandable concern by sections of the staff, and they would like to know exactly how their lives are being affected at the moment. And I think some of them are not happy with my comment that I'm not into micro management. But it's not for the chief executive to get involved in making all decisions about all staff in all divisions. I've appointed a number of people to each of the divisions. It's on the record that I have more direct reports than my predecessor because I want to be more hands on. But still, at the end of the day, it is for the divisional directors to make judgements in relation to how the budget and how our strategies and approaches will be implemented. REPORTER: Well, if you're not going to listen to the staff I suppose you've got to listen to the... SHIER: I do listen to the staff, Laurie. I'm not saying I don't listen to the staff. REPORTER: Even these protest meetings - you take note of what they say and what ... ? SHIER: Yes indeed. I mean, I don't embarrass them with my presence, because I think they probably want to be able to comment in my absence. But I do, you know, I hear and it's often well reported what they've said. And I did actually make, you know, a joke when I spoke to the staff that the one great thing about email these days is that you can email anyone. And a lot of the staff just don't, therefore, hesitate to email the chief executive, which I think is wonderful. You know, before those technical changes, you know, you'd have to pass two or three secretaries or other staff to get to chief executives and now you can just log on, send an email and express your view. And, you know, I welcome that. REPORTER: Now, you're spending most of this week talking to politicians hearing their views. I guess the group that must worry you most is the National Party. What assurances will you give them when you talk to their party meeting tomorrow night? SHIER: Well, I mean, I want the National Party to understand that they were wrong when they didn't approve a hundred and ninety-four million for the ABC in February. I mean, you know, that's when the ABC wanted the help of the National Party and the help of the government. I'll be making it clear to each of the parties that I see that there is a vision for the ABC. I do not believe it is restricted and should not be restricted to news and current affairs. I mean, we talk about the new media, Laurie, but the fact is the new media five years down the road will be the old media. And if, in fact, the ABC gets out of that area now, if the ABC just says, look, you know, that's not an area where the ABC should go, then the facts will be public broadcasting, well funded public broadcasting in Australia, will be marginalised. REPORTER: Now, do you think that funding issue can be reopened to any great extent? SHIER: Well, I'm reopening it. The can-do bit I can't answer on. I'll do my best. I hope everyone makes it clear that they think the ABC should be better funded. I've placed on the record the numbers which, when I joined in March the BBC had nine times our funding. Since then it's gone to eleven times our funding. I mean, their last increase was bigger than our entire annual budget. I don't see any reason why the people of Australia should have under-funded public broadcasting. REPORTER: Well, the Labor Party's made pretty enthusiastic noises about the emphasis you want to place on education, and obviously they would increase funds if they formed the government because it fits in with Kim Beazley's knowledge nation line. Do you think that will force the government to take the same attitude? SHIER: Well, I mean, you know, I can't read the tea leaves on that, but I'm pleased that the Opposition recognises that we cannot any longer deliver educational services in the way that we were doing in the nineteenth century. I mean, you know, when I left Australia twenty-four years ago the debate was classroom sizes - 36 was too many, 25 was desirable. We're still having that debate. I mean, we have something like over nine thousand schools in the country, and the fact is next week some pupils have got the nine thousandth worse teacher. We could have the best teacher in all the classrooms across the country supplementing the work done by teachers in the classroom, and it would be incredibly valuable, particularly for people in rural Australia. I mean, Cunnamulla could have the best physics teacher or the best chemistry teacher by digital interactive television. REPORTER: So will you be telling Dr Kemp, the Education Minister, tomorrow that he's got a political problem if he doesn't line up with the ALP and give you more money? SHIER: No, I mean, Laurie, that's his judgement, you know. I will be asking for support. I have made it clear to the board that I want to come back to them in December and put a number on this. At the moment what I want to do is get the debate up. I want people to understand that the ABC could be doing a lot more than it is at the moment, a lot more in education, a lot more in health, a lot more in rural affairs, a lot more in the new economy. There's lots of opportunities for a public broadcaster to better inform and educate the people of Australia than currently takes place. REPORTER: Well, getting back to the National Party if I could, because they are concerned about the cuts in news and current affairs, will you be able to guarantee to them tomorrow night that rural programs and services won't be cut? SHIER: Yes, I think I can. But what I ... you know, the only caveat I put on that is I've put directors in place to make judgements. I would be very surprised if the director of radio, for example, came back to me and said she wanted to cut back regional radio. I would think if she did recommend that it's highly likely - I don't want to pre-judge my colleagues - but it's highly likely that the executive would say no. The fact is that I want more money into regional radio, not less. It's one of the things, one of the eight points that I'll be putting to the politicians next week. It's incredibly important for many people who only get their news and current affairs from their local ABC station. And particularly in those states where there is a one newspaper monopoly, the importance of the ABC in news and current affairs is crucial. REPORTER: Now, the Nationals want more than that, of course. Ron Boswell, for example, says we will tell him, him being you... SHIER: Yes. REPORTER: ... what we expect. He must maintain those flagship programs such as AM, PM, The 7.30 Report, and rural news reports. Will you give him that assurance? SHIER: Well, I'll make clear to Mr Boswell that the ABC is independent, that the board and the program makers at the ABC will make those judgements. I'm not prejudging the answer to the question, I'm simply saying that I wouldn't find firm recommendations from the National Party in relation to our scheduling any more influential on this than any other matter that would affect our independence. REPORTER: Now, will you guarantee that no mainstream program will be cut? SHIER: Well, you know, I've seen lists of programs that supposedly could be cut and I find it quite inconceivable that those programs would be cut when there's a hundred and twenty million... a hundred and twelve million going into news and current affairs and when the cut is three per cent. I mean, it's hard. And I'm not in any way underestimating the difficulty for news and current affairs, but the fact is that recently the ABC had a ten per cent across... cut across the board which did not affect news and current affairs. So the rest of the ABC has already had to suffer substantial cuts. Basically, the money that's coming out of news and current affairs is doing two things - it's enabling us to start our multi-channel work, which we want to do because if we ignore that, we'll marginalise ourselves. And secondly it's providing closed caption for the hard of hearing, which is mandated by the government, which is costing us over a million dollars. Those two things basically take the funds that otherwise would have gone into news and current affairs. REPORTER: Now, the news people, of course, asked for a hundred and twenty million and they got, what, a hundred and twelve? SHIER: Yes. REPORTER: Now, did they do their sums wrongly, because they say they needed a hundred and twenty to maintain current services and programs. SHIER: Well, look ... REPORTER: Were they incompetent with their sums, or are they ... SHIER: I think ... REPORTER: ... having a lend of you? SHIER: Yes. I don't think there was one director - I don't think it will surprise you - I don't think there was one of my thirteen directors who didn't ask for more money than they got. And I encourage them to do that, I mean, I want them to actually decide what they could do better and I want them to seek the extra funds. The difference between getting enough... what you ask and what you get is not a cut. The difference is what you had and what you end up getting and that's three million. So, you know, I'm not finding any fault with the process and I don't in any way find... have any criticism for the directors and news and current aff... director of news and current affairs or his staff wanting extra funds. The fact is, the funding available to the ABC is fixed. There is no more money, all the easy options have already been adopted by my predecessors. There is, in fact, no other option. If we need some money to demonstrate the importance of the ABC to the Australian people, then take some money out of news and current affairs. REPORTER: Now, I want to get to your management style, which also figured prominently in the John Lyons piece. SHIER: Yes. REPORTER: The criticism that you're going to have more highly paid executives, not fewer. SHIER: Yes. Yes. REPORTER: How do you answer that? SHIER: Well, you know, it's the usual ... got a few hostile witnesses there, as I'm sure the viewers will appreciate. But, I mean, if you take Gail Jarvis, Gail Jarvis is now Director of Television. She's doing the job that used to be done by Andy Lloyd-James, Ron Saunders, Tim McGee and Hugh McGowan. All those four people. Now, the fact is she has to have some help, she needs another person. But the fact... at the moment, that lady is doing the task of what was previously done by four people. I totally reject the suggestion that there's been - that lovely Australian expression - blow out in middle management. The fact that we've put two people to work on drama and the fact that that will result in programs of the quality like Changi, I think shows the commitment to drama, not a commitment to a blow out. And I really think that that's disingenuous. REPORTER: Are you concerned, though, at this perception of erratic management? For example, in that piece, Donald McDonald didn't exactly embrace you and claim responsibility for your appointment. He seemed to be wanting to avoid responsibility. SHIER: Oh, I don't ... I didn't take it that way. I mean, I think the board was very, very supportive to my appointment. I mean, the fact is, you know, Laurie, when I went into the board meeting to be interviewed, there was only one person around that table that I knew - and that was Ian McPhee - and having been away from Australia for some time I assumed that he was a Liberal Party appointment and of course subsequently learnt that he'd been appointed by the Labor Party. So, you know, the reality is that I was appointed by a board quite a significant number of whom were appointed by the last government. I would stack my CV up against any of the other candidates. The fact that David Elstein, a former colleague of mine at Thames, who I was promoted over to become deputy managing director, should actually want to settle a few scores. I mean, over twenty-three years in broadcasting, I would be amazed if you couldn't find a few people who'd find some faults. I mean, the reality is, as you know, there are some people who ... back here in Australia that I've recently dealt with in the last, you know, four months that would be happy to go on your program and find fault. You don't have to go back to Britain and look over twenty-three years to find one. REPORTER: Well, speaking of people finding fault, the final issue, did you take over this job with a hit list? And if you didn't, how are you able to get the head-hunters to work to replace people before you even took up the job? SHIER: Yes. I mean, there's a very simple answer to that. I mean, when I got the appointment, which was in November, I didn't start till March. You can understand that's moderately frustrating to someone ... REPORTER: Yeah. SHIER: ... who thinks public broadcasting's crucial, wants ... REPORTER: ... and you'd lived overseas so presumably you didn't know the people in those jobs. SHIER: Absolutely. Now, you know, I don't deny, I tend to sell that argument on the basis of objectivity rather than ignorance ... REPORTER: Mm. SHIER: ... but the fact is I did, you know, I had no view of the people who were working in the television and the radio markets in Australia. So I employed, during the period before I joined with the approval of the chairman, a group of head-hunters to really scan the market, to tell me what the talent was outside the corporation. I thought it was totally inappropriate until I started work on March the seventeenth to look at our people. But I wanted to look at our own people, after March the seventeenth, in the light of what other talent was available and what the feeling was. And, you know obviously on my travels I got a lot of people commenting on our own people. REPORTER: But had you been told, for example, the Prime Minister doesn't like Paul Williams, so he's got to go? SHIER: No. Absolutely not. REPORTER: So why was he on the hit list? SHIER: Well, when you say on the hit list ... REPORTER: Mm. SHIER: ... Paul's contract was going to be reviewed at a point not long after my appointment. I mean, I was going to have to review whether I reappointed him. Now, I could've let that contract be concluded and then appointed somebody else. My judgement was that we needed a change. My judgement was that the ABC news and current affairs didn't quite have the world focus that I would like it to have. A difficult area because a lot of people said to me, Jonathan, you've been overseas for a period, you'll want to make it too international. But I did believe that I wanted a greater connection, if you like, between Australia and the world at the ABC, and subsequently I appointed, as you know, somebody who had been a foreign correspondent which I thought would bring that strength. REPORTER: Well, we're out of time, unfortunately. But thank you very much. SHIER: Pleasure, Laurie. REPORTER: Back to you, Jim. PRESENTER: Jonathan Shier talking there with Laurie Oakes. ENDS. Transcript provided by Rehame Australia. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
