Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

In listening to the contribution of Senator Bilyk, it was quite interesting to hear the many comments that she made about the ABC being different, not having commercial revenue opportunities and bias et cetera. But I just wonder whether the difference of the public broadcaster means that it is somehow immune from being efficient, effective and accountable. I wonder, when the ABC did its study to find out what Australians thought of their ABC, whether it asked those people in the study whether they believed that it was okay for the ABC not to be as efficient as it absolutely could be. I am sure it did not. If it had, I am sure that the Australian public would have said that, whilst they love their ABC—as I am sure everybody in this place does—they still believe that it should be running as efficiently as it possibly can be.

It is interesting, when we are talking about the efficiency, the effectiveness and the accountability of the ABC, that, last week, when I was questioning Mr Scott in relation to the ABC and how it determined the priorities for the allocation of its resources and how it measured whether it was actually achieving the objectives of its charter, Mr Scott referred me to the strategic review—which I had already had a look at, but I thought, 'I'd best go back and have another look at it to make sure that I haven't missed something.' I think there is a real issue here, and that is that the ABC, for all the billion dollars a year that it gets from the government, really does not have any defined, transparent methodology that is published, so the public can see it, as to how it actually determines how it allocates its resources but also to measure against its ability to achieve its charter.

So I cannot see how on that basis the board of the ABC is really in any position to be able to be measuring the output of the organisation when it does not actually have anything against which to benchmark. If you have a look at the strategic review and the strategic plan the ABC has a number of strategies, but they are all motherhood type strategies: 'Audience focused', 'High quality', 'Innovative, 'Values based', 'Responsible', 'Efficient'. But, really, in the greater scheme of things, what does that actually mean unless you have something tangible by which to measure it?

It was interesting today reading in The Australian comments of the former Labor Premier of South Australia, Mr John Bannon. For the record, I thought it was quite interesting that Mr Bannon made this comment:

The lesson is that the board must not be conned by a management offering very popular programs in the hope that the government will back down.

Mr Bannon, I am assuming, is meaning to cut very popular programs.

Nor must allow centralisation is purported economies to rule. Instead of what being at what can be cut "out there" and brought back to Sydney Central, it should be looking the other way. What can be outsourced to regional officers with capacity, more efficiently, cheaply and with real commitment to local production and capacity?

It has to insist on this principle and not just roll with the management offerings. That way we'll get a better, more robust, truly national broadcaster.

That from the Hon. John Bannon, former Labor Premier of South Australia.

The other thing that has been quite interesting in this debate is the debate about efficiencies versus cuts. The minister earlier this year sought to have conducted an efficiency study to determine what opportunities there were in the ABC and the SBS to be able to make the organisation run more efficiently and to find savings. That review was undertaken by Mr Lewis and came back with a quantum of savings which Mr Lewis and his team believe that the ABC and SBS could implement without actually taking away from the delivery of programs.

It is worth noting that over the next five years the ABC will receive $5.2 billion from the taxpayer as opposed to $5.5 billion that was the budgeted number. We are talking about $300 million in total over five years out of a $5.5 billion budget. That in itself raises a number of questions about Mr Scott's statement last week and Mr Scott's statements today. I will read you from a statement that Mr Scott has posted online in which he says:

Because the cuts are back-end loaded, in the latter years of the accumulated impact to the ABC is over eight per cent a year.

I don't know whether you studied maths or economics at school, Acting Deputy President Bernardi, but I would suggest that $300 million over five years out of a budget of $5.5 billion, even at an extraordinary stretch, does not go anywhere near being eight per cent. So I think Mr Scott needs to be a little more honest when he is using these figures, because it does not matter which way you look at it, there is no way in the world, no matter what you add in or how you look at it, that the budget changes are eight per cent. In fact, I cannot make them reach five per cent. So we do need to be very, very careful about the misinformation that is being put out there in the public space by this particular issue. Just remember that nobody is asking Mr Scott to do anything more than to deliver the efficiency savings measures that have been identified in an independent report commissioned for him. I am sure he has probably got a report he has commissioned himself in his bottom drawer that will tell him ways that he can get more savings, including the savings that have not even been discussed about the savings that could be achieved from transmission costs.

The efficiencies that came out basically said that the ABC can be more productive, can get the same or even ideally a bigger bang for slightly fewer taxpayer dollars. It was also interesting to note that last Thursday during the estimates hearing the SBS representative, Mr Khalil, made the comment that the SBS would be absorbing its savings and efficiency measures without having any effect on production, content or any job losses. So I think is quite interesting that we have a completely different approach being taken by the ABC in relation to trying to find these efficiency savings.

I do not think anyone can credibly argue that the public broadcaster should be exempt from finding savings. I don't even think those opposite could come up with any justification for doing that. It is really quite interesting that a number of commentators that have been very great supporters of the ABC are all coming out and making the comment that the ABC really does need to be reasonable about this. In the words of Louise Evans, who is a former manager at ABCs Radio National and a former managing editor at The Australian:

Pockets of the ABC have been allowed to get too fat, flabby, wasteful and accountable.

The same efficiencies and workplace practices that are the norm in corporate Australia need to be front and centre at the ABC so that it remains a strong, independent voice …

Everybody seems to think that there is nothing wrong with the ABC becoming more efficient, apart from perhaps Mr Scott. The real tragedy, I suppose, of this is this is just another step along the road of centralisation. Currently 50 per cent of the ABC staff already work in Sydney. These changes that Mr Scott has put on the table today in relation to closing the Adelaide studio, getting rid of the 7.30 Report, cutting five radio stations in rural and regional Australia will just serve to increase that city-centric focus of the ABC. It is tremendously sad because the name of this organisation is the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. It is not the 'Sydney Broadcasting Corporation'. It is time that the ABC started to show a little bit more transparency about some of its decision making and also started to behave a little bit more responsibly when it comes to being an efficient and effective organisation.

I must say though, in closing, that it was very heartening to hear Mr Scott put on the record on Thursday night that he would prioritise rural and regional Australia, and today it is public statement he has come out and said that he is intending to create a regional division. That is obviously something that is terribly important to people who live in rural, regional and remote Australia, because often the ABC is their only form of communication and news that they are able to get, despite Mr Scott not wanting to accept the fact that the ABC in some instances is the broadcast of last resort. It is all well and good to have all the nice things that happen in the metropolitan and urban marketplace, but for people who live in rural and regional Australia the ABC is the broadcaster of last resort. I think Mr Scott would do well to remember that. The other thing that was obviously of great relief to those people who live in the country was that Mr Scott confirmed that the ABC would continue to be the emergency broadcaster, and that there was absolutely no intention whatsoever for that service to be reduced, cut or otherwise. There were a couple of good pieces of news in this but, sadly, Mr Scott still seems to believe that his organisation is immune from having to make efficiency savings.