Senate debates

Tuesday, 28 March 2006

Matters of Public Importance

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

4:41 pm

Photo of Dana WortleyDana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak about a matter of public importance which affects one of the great public institutions of Australia—the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the ABC, the people’s ABC. It is now an endangered species and has been since the election of the Howard government. The ABC as we have known it is moving closer and closer towards extinction in the hands of this government. Since 1996, the government has starved the national broadcaster of funding. In real terms today, the ABC has $51 million less for making programs than it did when the Howard government came to office. The ABC is so starved of funds that it now rates as the second most underfunded public broadcaster in the OECD. Despite this, the ABC provides two television stations, four national and 60 local radio stations, two digital radio stations, ABC Online and Radio Australia—all of these public broadcasting activities on a budget about two-thirds of the average Australian commercial television network.

On 2003-04 numbers, the ABC’s annual budget for television alone is less than a third of Channel Nine’s, 40 per cent of Seven’s and 58 per cent of Ten’s. These figures speak volumes about the desperate situation facing the ABC today. The filtration effect on programming is startling. In recent years, the development of first-run Australian drama has dropped from 103 hours to just 13. Last year, the Australian content on the ABC was around 43 hours—nowhere near the 200 hour mark which is the obligation of television broadcasters in Australia. There would no doubt be people in this country who have been listening to and watching the ABC for over 70 years. When the programming slips to such critical levels, people notice. People notice these things. Those who work at the ABC notice these changes too. Given the seriousness of these facts, it would come as no surprise that even the members of the board are very concerned about this issue.

In the board of directors’ statement in the ABC’s annual report of 2005 under the ‘financial sustainability’ heading it reads:

A growing gap now exists between the funding provided and that which is needed to maximise the potential of ABC programs ... in the new digital environment.

It goes on to say in the closing section of the board’s statement:

A critical point has been reached. Unless adequate funding is secured for the coming triennium, the Board will be faced with a range of fundamental questions about the extent and quality of ABC programming and services.

The board’s statement almost reads like an extract from what we could have expected from Burke and Wills’ diary: ‘Save us, and save us now, before it is too late!’ Last year the minister was generous enough to throw a small lifeline to the ABC when she commissioned KPMG to investigate and review funding adequacy and efficiency at the ABC. So the minister is obviously conscious of the problem. We now hear that the report did not exactly tell the minister what she wanted to hear. And, though the minister has had the report for some weeks, it still has not been released. I ask the government: when will you be prepared to release the report, or does the minister intend sitting on the report indefinitely?

Given the $417,000 of taxpayers’ money that the KPMG report cost, we can only presume that the government intends to use its findings in conjunction with the ABC’s submission in the May budget. This is the opportunity for the government to restore adequate funding to the ABC so that our ABC is able to deliver the high-quality news, current affairs and entertainment that the Australian public not only expect but deserve. The Australian public will be waiting for the outcome of that May budget.

It would, however, be unfair to suggest that the Howard government and Senator Coonan have not brainstormed some solutions to the funding crisis of the ABC. I refer to an interview in the Bulletin where Minister Coonan said she was considering including commercial advertising. The minister said when asked about advertising on the ABC:

... these are some of the things that I mean the board might like to look at—as to just what they want to do with advertising, what they want to do about commercialising ...

I would like to now refer you to the ABC Act, where in section 31 it states, ‘The corporation shall not broadcast advertisements.’ This suggestion that the board consider a change, which is clearly contradictory to the act, must be of concern to the Australian public.

At the last election the government promised to maintain its position on advertising prohibition for our national broadcaster. Is the Howard government going to honour this election promise, or is it a case of ‘Senate majority so we’ll push this one through too’? That is the first thing I would say about advertising. The second is, and this should be pretty obvious, the ABC has built its reputation as a unique, innovative, independent and diverse broadcaster largely due to the absence of commercial influence. Diversity and independence of institutions such as the ABC are critical elements in maintaining our culture, in maintaining our traditions and in showing newcomers to our land about the great features that make us a great society.

The ABC also has a significant role in observing the operation of government and reporting on this to the Australian public. This is an essential part of the main democratic principles that built our society. Without doubt, advertising on the ABC would eventually compromise its editorial independence. The mums and dads are already asking questions about what it would mean for ABC children’s television. How long would it be before we would find advertising sneaking into children’s programming? Our ABC with Coke and McDonald’s interrupting Play School and Bananas in Pyjamas every 10 minutes—not our ABC, Minister!

Only last Friday, the minister announced another move by the government to impose its influence on our ABC. Senator Coonan announced during the Commonwealth Games that the Howard government intended to abolish the position of staff-elected director on the board of the ABC. This position gives the staff at the ABC a presence within the board’s corporate governance. This position of staff-elected director gives the ABC board a vital insight into the operations of the day-to-day employees. Interestingly enough, in the 2001 report of the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee entitled Methods of appointment to the ABC board, in response to a recommendation, government senators stated:

There has been no suggestion that the position of the staff-elected director will be abolished.

Now the government have changed their mind. It changed with the Senate majority. And, let us be clear, this is the one position left on the ABC board that the government cannot control. So if you cannot control it, what do you do if you are the Howard government? Answer: you get rid of it.

Labor believes that there should be an open and transparent process for making appointments to the ABC board. At the present time, the staff-elected position is the one position that fulfils this criterion. Today, Sydney performer and Alliance New South Wales secretary Penny Cook presented the minister with a 40,000-person petition seeking greater funding for the ABC. So great is the support from the public for increased funding for the ABC that it took only four days to acquire this significant response.

There is no doubt that community support for the ABC exists. Senator Eggleston told us that the ABC’s independence is guaranteed by the act. This is a fact. I have already stated the act also prohibits broadcast advertisements, but Senator Coonan has cast serious doubt on this continuing to be the case. Adequate funding would enable the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to deliver sufficient first-release Australian television drama, documentaries and children’s programming. It would enable it to deliver enhanced levels of local television and radio news, current affairs and sports coverage for people living in metropolitan, rural and remote areas. (Time expired)

Comments

No comments