Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

In following the member for Bruce, I note that he was quick to point out that those on this side had expressed some opinions against the ABC. However, I can tell you that, proudly, back in January I outed myself on this topic—and it has nothing to do with the pink shirt I am wearing today. I outed myself in support of the ABC. I love the ABC, and my electorate loves the SBS. Monday nights on the ABC are my favourite: the 7 pm news with Juanita Phillips;    7.30, where Sarah Ferguson is doing a fine job covering for Leigh Sales; eight o'clock, when Australian Story kicks off with Caroline Jones; Media Watch, with Paul Barry back at the helm; and then of course Q&A with Tony Jones, and I want to come out with this now: I reckon he's a 'swinger'—when I say that, I mean voter, of course. You can take that as a comment. I had the honour of being mentioned this year, surprise, surprise, in the first question on Q&A, with relevance to this particular topic, and who knows—gratuitous act of self-promotion!—one day I might even get to appear on the show.

My father-in-law is a cocky about 90 kays from here in Gundagai, where he runs a cattle property. I have spent many hours in cattle yards working alongside him and I know the vital role that the ABC plays in regional Australia. As for the SBS, as the member for Reid I am the member for one of the most culturally diverse seats in federal parliament. As of the 2011 census, 55.1 per cent of the people of Reid were born overseas and 61 per cent spoke a language other than English. The SBS plays a vital role for these people. Following on from what everyone has said here today—with relevance to the comments the Minister for Communications has made re the ABC board, charter and structure—the ABC has served the Australian people well for a long time now and it will continue to do so. Any claims of dog-whistling made by the member for Bruce should be treated with the respect that they deserve—that is, none. The ABC should report without fear or favour, and, put simply, both sides should get cranky with the way they report from time to time.

I do not know whether the member for Werriwa was a lawyer, but I note that, of the other five speakers, at least four are lawyers, and if the member for Werriwa is one then that makes it five out of five. I come from a commercial background and I want to bring a commercial aspect to this debate today. We in government spend taxpayers' money and we must do so wisely. Traditionally, businesses in this country operate a profit-and-loss statement. They have two sides: a revenue side and an expense side. By deducting the expenses from the revenue you come up with the bottom line, EBITDA. The problem with the ABC is that it is not a commercial operation. It only has expenses; it does not have revenue. So, considering we are spending $1.4 billion of taxpayers' money, we have a job to review—not only now but, I would say, continually—the efficiency of the operation. We owe that to taxpayers because we are also at a fiscal crossroads. Those opposite have left us in a situation where we have $123 billion worth of debt in the out years of the budget, and a combined $673 billion. If we were ever going to be serious about efficiency and looking after taxpayers' money, now is the time—it must be the time.

I will pose a rhetorical question: if we could run the ABC 25 per cent cheaper today and get the same result, would we do it? The answer on the government's side is yes. You would assume that is a rhetorical question. However, the problem with a motion of this nature is that you cannot assume that. I believe that those opposite would not want to do that. That is the problem. Commercial acumen is lacking in this debate, and I am attempting to bring it in. I believe that the process initiated by the Minister for Communications is the right one. It will come up with the right result, putting taxpayers' dollars front and centre of our minds, as it should be—the backbone of a Tony Abbott coalition government.

See this speech in context