Senator Andrew Bragg and ABC chair Ita Buttrose (Images: AAP/Lukas Coch)

Liberal Senator Andrew Bragg has earned some… er… bragging rights when it comes to the ABC — and that can’t hurt his rise in the party. But where is it heading?

In the inquisitorial forum of the Senate environment and communications legislation committee, Bragg has dragged out concessions from the ABC’s top brass.

Over months of appearances, ABC managing director David Anderson has admitted that, yes, an ABC lawyer who tweeted about the “fascist” Morrison government had resigned. Yes, the ABC has terminated its publishing deal with the industry superannuation-backed website New Daily because of questions it raised about the ABC’s independence. 

Yes, the ABC also changed its policy on staff tweets following Bragg’s intervention after Laura Tingle tweeted about “government bastardry” and a “smug Scott Morrison”.

Bragg calls this process working “constructively” with the ABC in order to help it “achieve its potential”. 

“I like the ABC,” Bragg has said. “A lot of the rhetoric about the ABC over the years has been unhelpful, because it’s been focused on culture wars. I’m not interested in culture wars.”

It’s not the language of a bug-eyed bully, and Bragg is no redneck. He chaired the Coalition’s Yes campaign for marriage equality, for example.

Bragg’s collection of wins and his reasonable demeanour make him a potent foe for the ABC. A week ago he announced the senate would hold a “surgical” inquiry into the way the ABC handles complaints.

It provoked a furious response from chair Ita Buttrose. There had been speculation about whether or not Buttrose had the desire to stand up to the government. Now it appears both sides have picked their fight.

It’s been a long time coming.

What’s it all about?

Bragg said the inquiry was needed because of “public concerns” raised over the current system. 

“Public concerns”? There are nominally three or four examples which form the case against the way the ABC handles complaints, coming from niche quarters.

One is a complaint from a group of former advisers and politicians from the days of the late NSW premier Neville Wran, angered by how the Labor hero was depicted in an investigation of the 1979 Luna Park fire. Another is a complaint from the Australia Israel and Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) over a perception of bias and lack of impartiality on an episode of Q+A in May.  

Other examples include coverage of an event involving former Labor government treasurer John Dawkins in Annabel Crabb’s series Ms Represented. Most recently, executives at Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News have been incensed by a two-part special on how the network facilitated Donald Trump’s propaganda. 

So the public concern boils down to complaints in relation to two ALP figures, the AIJAC and the Murdoch media. But it may be that two hands, rather than one, are needed to count the true number of individuals who are upset.

The common thread is that the ABC examined the complaints internally and cleared itself — for some, though, the process can be infuriating. As John Dawkins’ wife Maggie said, it’s “as futile as expecting that the police are capable of investigating themselves”.

Crikey is familiar with this frustration. Crikey‘s parent company Private Media lodged a complaint with the ABC over a Four Corners story on QAnon which, we contend, drew on key work done by Crikey without sufficient attribution. The complaint was dismissed. And who dealt with it? The executive producer of Four Corners who put the program to air.  

So some complainants might have a fair gripe. But is a senate inquiry the answer? Particularly given that the ABC has already begun its own review using two external consultants?

It appears to be another case of public money being used to fund a private political vendetta.

So what’s it really all about?

Senator Bragg might be here to help, but at the same time he is fronting for a government with hardcore grievances against the public broadcaster.

After roughly 20 of the last 25 years in government, Liberal irritations are piled high about how the ABC covers Indigenous affairs, asylum seekers, global warming, Cardinal George Pell, Israel/Palestine and, more recently, the vaccination rollout, to name just a few.

But the last 12 months have been vicious.

The standouts have been programs from Four Corners covering sexual assault allegations against former attorney-general Christian Porter (which Porter denies); and coverage of the unhinged QAnon cult in Australia, and members’ links to Scott Morrison’s family.

The government’s anger about those stories comes down to a very specific issue: who really runs the ABC. Is it the government-appointed ABC board and its managing director? Or is the ABC run by an unaccountable cabal as its enemies contend?

What’s at stake?

There is more at play than simply the perennial benefit for the government in exhausting the ABC by subjecting it to constant interrogation.

With an election in the next six months, there’s an immediate benefit for the government in putting the ABC under pressure. It will put program makers on notice and jangle the nerves of editorial decision makers who might blunt their coverage of the government, or square up the ledger with some hard reporting on Labor.

But there is also a real battle for the soul of the ABC. The government’s base has been looking for a sign that it is serious about taking on the broadcaster. It looks like they got it this week.

Buttrose has called Bragg’s Senate inquiry a blatant attempt to usurp the role of the ABC board and undermine its operational independence, which includes, critically, conducting its own reviews in order to manage its own affairs.

But is the issue the ABC’s independence — or its arrogance? Opponents of the ABC, channelled through the government and Bragg, have long concluded that the board cannot exert its authority on its own staff. So who can?

These opponents are a formidable coalition which enjoys the full backing of the Murdoch empire. The ABC has also had its missteps this year, most notably in a decision to use public funds to pay for the personal legal bill of reporter Louise Milligan after she was found to have defamed MP Andrew Laming.

What lies in prospect? 

There are various possibilities of what a senate inquiry could lead to. One option would be for the government to establish an independent ombudsman as an external body to examine ABC complaints. That would create a parallel organisation to the ABC board and would have a serious impact on the ABC’s ability to manage its affairs in-house.   

The open question is whether or not the independence of the ABC remains the potent electoral issue it once was.

Because if anyone needs a change of government next year, it’s the ABC.