Laurie Ferguson (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

At the outset, I associate myself with a few comments made by the member for Corangamite. Certainly, I would have hoped that there was reference in this motion to Indigenous television. I also agree with her assertion that no area of society should be exempt from criticism. The ABC is as imperfect as all of us, and, indisputably, there can be commercial investigations as to its effectiveness. I was persuaded by comments by Brian McNair and Adam Swift in the Brisbane Times, which made this point about a comparison with a well-known international provider:

The BBC receives the equivalent of about A$8 billion in revenue from various sources each year (mainly the licence fee). With this, it services more than 65 million viewers, listeners and online users.

The ABC makes do with an annual budget of A$1.2 billion to serve a population of 22 million. That’s about 45% of what the BBC gets, per head of population. Given the quality of the ABC’s output overall, that’s a good deal for the Australian taxpayer. Don’t let any private media proprietor tell you otherwise.

In similar vein, I noticed comments in TheFinancial Review on the weekend by the outgoing chair of the SBS, who was unfortunately not reappointed, Joseph Skrzynski. He noted: 'We now have 74 languages every week. Nobody else in the world goes near it. The next biggest thing is Vatican radio, with 32, but frankly we do twice as many languages as the voice of God. The BBC is down to about 27.' That is an analysis of comparisons with a highly reputable BBC, which is not being criticised by Cameron's conservative government in the UK.

I note the comments by the Prime Minister that there is no threat to SBS and ABC funding and I also particularly commend the comments of the Minister for Communications last week that the ABC is more important than ever. However, these have to be seen in the context of an unrelenting campaign by political partisans such as Janet Albrechtsen, Piers Akerman, Gerard Henderson, Miranda Devine and co, and a very disturbing comment by the Prime Minister in relation to the coverage of one particular issue, where he said that the ABC was 'on everyone's side but Australia's'. Those words could have been spoken by Vladimir Putin, that in some way your national broadcaster is there to toe the government line. I am not disputing for a moment that in Australian broadcasting's role in South-East Asia it should promote largely positive comments about our country—our multiculturalism, our diversity, our engagement with the world—but to say that on controversial issues it must be on the government's side and the nation's side is a form of threat. It would be disturbing if there were to be payback with regard to finance because of a view that the media was too objective.

The member for Corangamite also made the point that this organisation has been attacked by Labor prime ministers. So be it; that is great. I am happy that on occasion the ABC is seen as not toeing the Labor party's line when it is in government, but that is no excuse to undermine an organisation which has so many positives. Since 2009, the ABC has spent $84 million on documentaries, dramas and children's projects that resulted in $257 million worth of total production of the independent sector. Importantly, Screen Australia's CEO, Ruth Harley, commented that television broadcasters have raised their stakes, with all broadcasters increasing their investment in Australian drama. However, she noted:

In particular, it’s been an outstanding couple of years for the ABC, which financed 30 titles in the 2012-13 slate, providing the largest contribution of investment of any single broadcaster. The ABC’s recent triennial funding boost has enabled it to commission significant levels of high-quality, original drama. This has produced great results for the industry and audiences with titles such as Serangoon Road, The Gods of Wheat Street and returning seasons of Redfern Now.'

The ABC are crucial to Australian content. They do this because of their charter and because of their culture. They see that sometimes it is more commercially viable to run some junk show on fixing up houses or some cooking competition where you do not have to pay anyone who has any acting ability whatsoever, but in the national interest they provide this groundwork for Australian culture, Australian performance and Australian production.

See this speech in context