Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I think the only thing sadder than the axe that has been brought down on public broadcasting in the last couple of weeks and the confirmation that we have seen today about exactly how that is going to wash through is the shameless, bug-eyed hypocrisy of coalition senators lining up to condemn the consequences of the cuts that they voted for. Are you people completely out of your minds? It is absolutely unbelievable!

Let us talk a little bit about the meaning of the word 'efficiency' because Senator Ruston—and I suspect Senator McKenzie is going to jump up and do the same thing shortly—pointed out that from a purely commercial point of view the ABC is inefficient. Senator McKenzie is not going to say that—I probably should not pre-empt what other senators are going to say. But this idea that the ABC should just knuckle down and behave like a commercial broadcaster kind of gives the game away. The fact is that from a purely commercial point of view it is inefficient to cover local sport, it is inefficient to maintain small regional bureaus in places like Wagin or Morwell, it is inefficient to maintain dedicated state current affairs reporting and it is probably really inefficient to put well-paid and well-resourced investigative journalists into the field. These things from a purely commercial point of view are inefficient. That is why we have public broadcasters to provide those things—because the private sector will not.

If you want to know what cutthroat commercial efficiency looks like, have a look at how commercial players have reacted to changes in the broadcast environment. They have reacted by closing down dozens of regional radio bureaus because they are expensive and inefficient. Now you get kids sitting in studios in Sydney reading news headlines that have been faxed to them from local newspapers—also likely produced a long way from regional towns—because that is more commercially efficient than maintaining people in those towns in the first place. We also see incredibly superficial treatment of current affairs. It is expensive and, commercially, probably a bit inefficient to maintain the kind of world-class current affairs and investigative work that we have trusted the ABC and the SBS to do. It is not impossible—and we do obviously have great journalists working in commercial bureaus around the country and upstairs here in the gallery—but it is difficult. It requires commitment and from a purely commercial point of view it is inefficient. That is why we see some commercial current affairs programs have gone down this degraded rabbit hole. It is like watching the visual equivalent of junk mail. It does not really count as current affairs any more. It is a lot cheaper to produce than putting top-notch investigative journalists on planes and sending them around the world to hot spots, or having them poke their noses into places where powerful people would probably prefer they not go.

If you want efficiencies, look at what has happened in the corporate sector—mass sackings, closures of bureaus and the disappearance of decent investigative work. Are those really the kinds of efficiencies that you want to pursue? You then come into this place and line up with surprise. Mr Pyne put out a press statement saying:

I am deeply disappointed in the ABC's announcement today about the closure of South Australia's production facilities …

What did you expect? Senator McKenzie is seeking assurances from the ABC that they will not cut services in her backyard. Good luck, Senator McKenzie; I wish you well. I suspect you are on a hiding to nothing. If you seriously did not expect that this was going to happen, I am not sure that it is going to be possible to help you. But marching in here and railing on behalf of your constituents about how Mr Scott should not be centralising things—