Senate debates

Monday, 24 November 2014

Matters of Public Importance

5:48 pm

Photo of Bridget McKenzieBridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

The hypocrisy! The level of debt that was left and the assumptions underpinning those from the other side who have spoken on this particular MPI are absolutely breathtaking. The assumption is that we on this side do not appreciate public broadcasters and do not appreciate the substantial contribution that a public broadcaster has made over 80 years to our national identity, serving particularly rural and regional communities where others have not been before. They let us know what the weather is going to be so we know when to put the crop in. They let us know about community events and how the national agenda will play out at the local level. To make the assumption that we do not appreciate that in our local communities is an absolute joke.

There is a lot of community concern about the reforms to the ABC and SBS. It means difficult decisions, Senator Ludlam—difficult decisions that you were never prepared to make. You are happy for Indigenous programs to have an efficiency dividend. You are happy for education departments to have a dividend. You are happy for defence departments to have a dividend. But you are not happy for the ABC and SBS to have to be like everybody else across the whole of government and actually be subject to contributing to pay down the absolute mess that you left us.

Change is never easy, but it is almost always necessary. The taxpayer spends more than $1 billion a year on the ABC and the taxpayer is entitled to demand value for money. However, people are less concerned about the dollar amount given to the ABC and far more interested in the level of service that it provided to them and their local community. The government and the communications minister, Malcolm Turnbull, have repeatedly stated that they remain committed to maintaining the health and vibrancy of the ABC and SBS but that it must be financially sustainable.

These are choices, and Mr Scott made that point in estimates last Thursday—it is about prioritisation and it is about choices as to how to fulfil their charter obligations in the most efficient manner. For the people the Nationals represent that means the health and vibrancy of services to people living in regional Australia—a principally, ABC local radio and, vitally, emergency broadcasting services. I note in Senate estimates on Thursday that, when I questioned him on this, Mr Scott was quite flippantly about to say, 'Oh, Senator, we can't actually rule in or rule out. We'll wait until Monday when I make the announcement.' The fact is that that was generating very real fear, particularly in regional Victoria, around the provision of the emergency services program. He then very, very quickly decided that that 'was all in the basket'.

So I do not make any apology for putting all my efforts into ensuring that ABC management and the board maintain their regional footprint—and I am buoyed by Mr Scott's public declarations of a regional focus, because it is about prioritisation as a national broadcaster. As a former member of the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, I have had the privilege of being able to question ABC management in Senate estimates over a number of years. ABC Managing Director, Mark Scott, has repeatedly assured me that the ABC's role as an emergency broadcaster is not under review. But I think his other answers over a period of time have been less reassuring about his commitment to regional Australia, which is why I am buoyed by his statement today.

He did not seem to have a lot of information on hand about local radio in regional Australia and what it costs. In May estimates, I asked Mr Scott how many of the ABC's 4½ thousand employees worked in regional offices. He could not tell me. Apparently it is 501. In estimates last week, I asked Mr Scott how much of the ABC budget goes to local radio—western Victoria, central Vic, Bendigo and Ballarat et cetera. Mr Scott said he would have to check that. I said: 'Well, let's look at trends. Of the $1 billion that Australians give to you as the national broadcaster, has the amount you have actually invested increased over time into local radio?' And the answer I got was, 'No, I think the amounts have actually remained static.' So they have not been investing in the areas that count as a national broadcaster, rather they have been doing exactly what Senator Ludlam said.

And they have been centralising—centralising!—to Sydney. That is exactly what Mr Scott said—

Comments

No comments