Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Hansard source

I appreciate the fact that I was able to have a discussion with the shadow minister earlier today about this very issue. I informed him at that time that the government would be opposing these amendments that have been put forward.

There are very strong public policy reasons for Australia's national broadcaster to provide the Australia Network service. The Australia Network is an important public diplomacy platform, as is the case with comparable operators such as the UK's BBC World Service, and it should be provided by the national broadcaster. You do not outsource this important service. The delivery of the Australia Network is subject to a funding agreement between the ABC and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to ensure that this service is delivered in line with the national interest.

The shadow minister has suggested that he concurs that, in normal circumstances, there are good public policy reasons for the ABC to perform this role, but he seems to be concerned that circumstances may arise where the ABC was imposing an unrealistically high charge on the government for delivering this service. The problem with the shadow minister's proposition is that it fails to take into account the structure of funding for the ABC as a government body. If it were the case that the ABC was seeking to gain extra revenue by overcharging by an amount on what could reasonably be expected to be an appropriate charge for delivering the service internationally, then the recourse to the government, as the funder of the public broadcaster would be immediate, clear and easy to implement.

It stands very clearly, in my view, that the only argument you can have for the shadow minister's amendment is not indeed the one that he puts forward about price gouging, if you like, in the way that the ABC puts itself forward but one that says the ABC should not register its concerns. So this is really just a Foxtel amendment the opposition has to make a show of moving. There is an argument that you might want a private tenderer to do it, but that is not the case. So I oppose the amendments put forward.

See this speech in context