Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) since 1 July 1932 when ABC Radio first came on air, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), created by the Australian Parliament, has played an integral and essential role in serving communities from all corners of the Australian Federation;

(b) the ABC and more recently, the Special Broadcasting Corporation (SBS), have played a key role in facilitating the evolution of a diverse but cohesive Australian polity, contributed significantly to the creation of a distinctive Australian identity, and been a critical guarantor of the quality and strength of Australian democracy;

(c) the ABC's Charter states the broadcaster shall 'contribute to a sense of national identity and inform and entertain, and reflect the diversity of the Australian community';

(d) public broadcasting plays an irreplaceable role in delivering a range of services that have not been provided and are not likely to be provided by private media organisations, including high quality educational children's television, comprehensive emergency services broadcasts, non English language and multicultural programming, and comprehensive coverage of major civic and sporting events, and democratic processes;

(e) the news, information, entertainment, and emergency service announcements provided by the ABC are of particular importance in regional and remote communities across Australia;

(f) the ABC has a longstanding and established reputation, based on public opinion data and independent analysis, as the most trusted and trustworthy source of television and radio news in Australia;

(g) the conservative think-tank, the Institute of Public Affairs, has called for the breakup and/or privatisation of the ABC and SBS; and

(h) on the day before the election, on 6 September 2013, speaking live to SBS from Penrith football stadium, the Prime Minister said, 'No cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS'; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) confirm the Prime Minister's clear and unequivocal commitment that there will be no cuts to the ABC or SBS;

(b) cease its unwarranted, politically motivated vilification of the ABC as a news organisation, and its baseless criticism of the ABC's organisational independence and integrity;

(c) respect the ABC's mandate to provide innovative and comprehensive broadcasting services, which in this digital age includes many platforms and cannot be confined to radio and television; and

(d) uphold the ABC and SBS Acts in respect of the arms length, merit based, and consultative protocols used for the appointment of ABC and SBS Board members.

I am very pleased to bring this motion forward for debate and discussion, because the ABC and SBS are such a critical part of our national life and identity and because, since the election of the Abbott government, we have seen a concerted assault on our public broadcasters in the form of a campaign of veiled and not so veiled threats in relation to funding and in the form of intimidation towards news organisations that dare hold politicians to account.

The ABC and SBS are each in their own way cornerstones of Australian life. They are not just two of a range of media options. Instead, they have a fundamentally different and distinctive character and purpose from other community based and commercial media platforms. They inform and education, question and analyse, celebrate and entertain, and they do so without fear or favour and without compromising quality or content as a result of any undue market pressure or the influence of ownership.

The focus of our national and multicultural broadcasters is squarely on the needs and interests of the Australian community. As a migrant nation where fully one-quarter of our population was born outside Australia and some 43 per cent of Australians have at least one parent born overseas, the importance and value of multicultural and foreign language broadcasting is plain. But, perhaps most importantly of all, in recognition that a healthy democracy depends on an informed public and on high-quality, independent journalism, public broadcasting is essential for its proven capacity to be the most reliable source of news and current affairs. When you look at Essential Media's survey on media trustworthiness in news and current affairs from 2013, 73 per cent of Australians trusted ABC TV and 70 per cent trusted ABC radio, whereas only 46 per cent trusted commercial TV and 44 per cent trusted commercial radio—the gap is stark. And for those who suggest the internet's range of media options is fast making traditional news sources like the ABC and SBS less relevant and less important, it is salient to note that only 40 per cent trusted news and opinion websites and 23 per cent trusted blogs.

I grew up in rural Western Australia and I can tell you that in the country and in the regions the ABC is part of your household in the same way that water pipes and taps are part of your household: it is a lifeline—precious and essential. The ABC is there on the kitchen radio in the morning and through the television news after dinner at night; kids watch high-quality children's programming uninterrupted by advertising; farmers, like my parents in Donnybrook, and workers alike tune in for weather and emergency warnings; people tune in for local, national and international sport; and they tune in for news about their part of Australia—for their stories and voices. The maintenance of news bureaus and journalists with a capacity to cover and give voice to stories from right across this massive and sparsely populated continent is a task that only the ABC is equipped and prepared to do.

One thing I would like to specifically mention is the appetite that both the ABC and SBS have for commissioning and screening programs that tackle difficult, complex, controversial and even confronting subject matter. I have in mind programs like SBS's Go Back to Where You Came From and the ABC's Four Corners investigations into the live export industry. These kinds of programs hold up the mirror in which we can look at ourselves, and sometimes struggle with what we see. That can make life difficult for government, and it did at times for the Labor government, but that is what a free and fearless media must do, and I celebrate the fact that our ABC and our SBS deliver that kind of courage.

So it worries me, it worries my constituents in Fremantle and it worries Australians in rural and regional areas a great deal to hear the Prime Minister of the country, and others in the coalition, taking every opportunity to make partisan attacks on the ABC whilst calling its very purpose into question. I am pleased that Minister Turnbull stated in this place last week that the ABC is more important than ever. I have no reason to think that the current efficiency review into the ABC and SBS, if conducted fairly, will produce results any different than the other two previous coalition initiated inquiries into the ABC. I note that KPMG's 2006 ABC funding adequacy and efficiency review concluded that the ABC was 'operating efficiently but suffered from a structural funding deficiency and bore costs that were not faced by commercial operators'. Strangely, the Howard government chose not to release the KPMG report. I trust that Minister Turnbull will apply the principle of transparency, which is cited as a reason for this current review, to ensure that the results of the review are made public.

On the very eve of the election last year, the then opposition leader said, 'No cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS'. It really does not come any clearer than this unequivocal commitment to Australian voters as they contemplated the ballot box. The now Prime Minister will be judged by that promise and we will hold him to it. All of those millions of Australians who depend on public broadcasting, who rely on the ABC and SBS for trusted news and quality programming, will fight to protect those cornerstones of our civic and community life.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak until after the member for Corangamite.

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is fair to say that most Australians love our public broadcasters—the ABC and SBS. We respect them as institutions, for the important role they play in our democratic process and for their relentless pursuit of excellence in journalism and program production. As the Minister for Communications, Malcolm Turnbull, told last week's gathering of ABC luminaries here in Parliament House, 'The ABC has always been a vital part of Australia's public life and a vital part of Australia's journalistic life.'

I have a particular love of the ABC. I worked for the public broadcaster for eight years as a presenter and journalist for shows like The Investigators, Holiday and the 7.30 Report, and as a fill-in presenter on ABC radio. I even made a brief appearance in the third series of that great Australian drama Frontline. As an actor, I made a great reporter! As a journalist I did some of my finest work at the ABC. I won a Walkley and a Golden Quill for my coverage of the Port Arthur massacre, the most dreadful of tragedies, back in 1996. So I make my contribution with a particular insight into the ABC. I understand better than most its successes and achievements; its flaws and failings. On this point, I note that it is unfortunate that this motion does not include or acknowledge National Indigenous Television, which was formerly an independent public broadcaster—another public broadcaster now merged with SBS. The stories of Indigenous Australians are very important. I also worked at NITV and I respect the work of that organisation greatly.

What is clear from today's motion is that members opposite do not appreciate the ABC's obligations under its charter. The ABC has a statutory, legislated obligation to be accurate and impartial in its news and information services, according to the objective standards of journalism. Government has no say in or influence over the editorial content of the ABC. So let us make this very clear: in a democracy, like many of Australia's finest institutions, the ABC should rightly be subject to criticism if it fails to meet its statutory obligations. If members opposite are not prepared to criticise the ABC, they demonstrate a failing to engage in the democratic process.

Of course, that was not the case with Labor members of old. Bob Hawke frequently criticised the ABC during his time as Prime Minister. In 1991 he said of the ABC's coverage of the Gulf War that it had been 'loaded', 'biased' and 'disgraceful'. Another favourite son of the Labor Party, the former Prime Minister Paul Keating, once famously rebuked the then ABC Managing Director David Hill, threatening to punish the ABC in the federal budget for displeasing behaviour. Former senator Robert Ray, from Labor's right, who retired in 2008, reportedly once chastised the ABC as being 'left-wingers, Stalinists, who pursue active campaigns against us'. So in considering this motion before the House, we see an unfortunate double standard.

I think it is fair to say that, in recent times, the ABC has not always got it right. Yes, it should pursue journalism; it should do an incredible job in the stories it tells; but, when it gets it wrong, it should rightly be criticised. I fully support Minister Turnbull's urging in his speech last week that directors should step up and become more involved in holding management to account for the way in which the ABC is run. The Chair of the ABC, the Hon. James Spigelman, has announced a series of independent editorial audits of the ABC's news and current affairs programs. This is right and proper.

I reiterate: there is no plan to make cuts to the ABC, as both the Prime Minister and Minister Turnbull have said on a number of occasions. But this does not mean that the ABC should be exempt from being efficient. I worked for the ABC, as I mentioned. I saw many examples of waste, inefficiency and some terrible work practices. I am sure things have improved since those days, but it is right and proper that both the ABC and the SBS deliver programs, products and services in a cost-effective and efficient manner. ABC and SBS receive $1.4 billion per year from the taxpayer. The taxpayer deserves no less.

I particularly note the wonderful role that the ABC plays in rural and regional Australia, including in Geelong, where I am from. I wish to acknowledge the diversity of voices of the ABC, though I would urge the ABC to improve the diversity of voices across its organisation. (Time expired)

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Fremantle for bringing forward this very important motion to the House. It is an important motion. It raises the issue of trust. The night before the last election the Prime Minister said that there would be no cuts to the ABC or SBS. Just over 24 hours after that on election night he said that he would lead a government that 'says what it means and means what it says'—all reasons to think that the ABC budget will not be cut and that the Prime Minister would be good to his word. But in the last few months we have seen some ominous signs. The first came from the Prime Minister himself, who said in a radio interview that the ABC:

… takes everyone's side but Australia's.

And then we heard from some of the ministers in this government. The Minister for Social Services, Kevin Andrews, said this after a debate about the ABC and whether its budget should be cut:

What goes around comes around.

Then the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop, time after time has refused to rule out cutting the Australia Network, which is run by the ABC. What is all this about? I suspect that it is about softening the ground before the Liberal Party break another promise—before they do what every Liberal government does, and that is: cut the ABC.

If they do that it means at least three things. First, it means that you cannot trust anything that this Prime Minister says. Second, it will hit regional Australia, particularly regional radio services. The Chief Executive Officer of the ABC was asked about this in estimates only a few weeks ago, and he said this:

I can give no guarantees that any services would be spared, including regional services, if our funding was cut.

He was then asked the question by Senator Urquhart:

Does that lack of guarantee refer to radio as well?

Mark Scott, Chief Executive Officer of the ABC said:

Yes, Senator.

So if there are cuts to the ABC not only does it mean that the Prime Minister's word is not something that you can trust or believe but it will hurt Australians in regional Australia that rely on the ABC's regional radio services for everything from local news to local sport to the important emergency broadcasts that are provided in times of flood, cyclone and bushfires. Third, if the ABC's Australia Network contract is cut then it will also hurt our influence in our region—in Asia and in the Pacific. That is not my analysis; that is the view of business leaders who are closely aligned with the Prime Minister, including Maurice Newman, chairman of the Prime Minister's Business Advisory Council, who said recently in the Australian Financial Review:

Certainly there is a case to be made for having Australia Network in a soft-power advocacy role, particularly to the region.

Hugh Morgan made the same point. He said:

To pack up and go would send an immediate message, particularly if it is seen as retribution against the ABC in a political context. The signals would be 'why the hell have you gone, we've spent all this time setting up, we thought you were coming to Asia'.

That is Hugh Morgan. Peter van Onselen made the same point in The Australian recently, where he said scrapping the Australia Network would be:

… rash, reactionary and will ultimately be counterproductive to our national interests.

So there is a lot of stake in this debate. There is a lot at stake in the discussions that are going on in the ERC right now. If the decision is made to break this promise and cut the ABC's budget, it will hurt the Prime Minister's integrity, it will hurt regional Australia and it will hurt our influence in the region. That is why it is important that the Minister for Communications wins this debate in the ERC and in cabinet. He has got to convince the Prime Minister that he is wrong on this. He has got to win this debate. All of the signs are not promising. He has been beaten by the Prime Minister in the past on the republic. He was beaten by the Prime Minister in a leadership decision only a few years ago. He was rolled by the Prime Minister on Huawei only a few months ago and only last week he was rolled by the Prime Minister on his request to reappoint the head of the SBS for another term. On any objective analysis Malcolm Turnbull is due for one, and for the good of the ABC we hope he wins on this important issue.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this motion, which addresses the very important issue of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the ABC, particularly as it relates to my electorate and to rural and regional areas right across Australia. In many ways the ABC is a lifeline for the bush. Whether it is Country Houror the country breakfast session in the morning, so many people rely on the information provided by the ABC. You can turn it on from six o'clock in the morning and get accurate market reports for markets that could be 1,000 kilometres away. That is vital information for people in rural Australia, who in most cases are denied reasonable access to the internet and to mobile phone services and who live vast distances from markets.

The ABC really does have a longstanding reputation for providing some of the most independent, credible and up-to-date news services in the industry, whether on television, online or on radio, through Radio National. The number of constituents who come to me and say that they would love to be able to access ABC Classic FM is remarkable. Who else provides that? It is a specialised channel. Occasionally I listen to Classic FM, when I turn off Slim Dusty, on the road to the outback. I enjoy it, and so do many of my constituents. I appeal to the board not to make cuts to these vital services to people in rural and regional Australia.

The ABC has a broad cross-section of programs on ABC1, ABC2, ABC3 and ABC News 24. There are wonderful free-to-air programs on these channels for people in rural and regional Australia. I occasionally watch ABC2, as my grandchildren watch it and I like to understand what they are watching. They are wonderful programs that are broadcast to constituents right across my electorate.

ABC programs from Longreach, Toowoomba and Mount Isa are broadcast across my constituency. If I switch on the ABC in the morning, I will know where the Royal Flying Doctor clinic will be on that day and for the rest of the week. Not only will I know; the constituents will know. If there is a problem with the Royal Flying Doctor clinic scheduling at, say, Windorah or Birdsville, people will know about it. Where does this information come from? It comes from the ABC rural network out west, from Longreach.

The ABC plays a role in emergencies, with information on such things as road closures. In my part of the world, there are no divided highways. There are no tunnels across the city to ease traffic congestion, which the member for Ryan would understand is important for Brisbane. In my part of the world, it is all dirt tracks, in some cases little better than when the first bullock wagon pulled into town. In times of floods, the ABC is able to provide information on road closures and on roads which will only permit high-clearance vehicles. The ABC relies on local people ringing in with very important information on how much rain has fallen in the vast areas of my electorate. The ABC connects communities. The journalists in these areas are part of the community. It is vital that they have good, reliable four-wheel drive vehicles with satellite phones when they travel vast distances to attend events and to report the news and the stories of smaller communities, which deserve to have their voice heard from time to time across our networks.

The ABC Western Queensland broadcasts to nearly 75 per cent of the land area of Queensland. Their primary coverage extends from the Northern Territory border in the west to the eastern highlands and from Hughenden right down to the New South Wales border. The population of the shires in ABC Western Queensland's coverage area is estimated at 57,000. To me, those people are just as important as the five million people who live in our capital cities, and these people deserve that we make sure that there are no cuts to rural and regional ABC, including to Fran Kelly's program on Radio National, or to the SBS. They should have access to all of these services.

I am very pleased that, from the Prime Minister down, the government has said that we will commit $1.4 billion in funding each year to the ABC and the SBS and that we have no plans to reduce this funding. The ABC is an important part of the daily life of constituents in rural and regional Australia. They have a wonderful reputation. They will be broadcasting the Anzac Day service from Gallipoli and the Western Front and services all over Australia. These services are provided to all Australians. (Time expired)

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support this motion, and I commend the member for Fremantle for moving it. As stated in the motion, the ABC's charter requires the broadcaster to 'contribute to a sense of national identity and inform and entertain, and reflect the cultural diversity of, the Australian community'. The Newspoll conducted to determine community attitudes towards the ABC in June 2013 indicated that 82 per cent of respondents believed that the ABC did a good job at being distinctively Australian. Seventy-eight per cent of respondents thought the ABC did a good job at being balanced and even-handed. When asked whether people thought the ABC was valuable to the Australian community, 85 per cent responded in the affirmative. The Labor Party agrees and extends this to the SBS.

It is therefore disheartening that some people in this place—and some in the community, indeed—are so out of step with this sentiment on this important issue. The ABC and the SBS have rightly earned their reputations for rigorous, trustworthy journalism. When news breaks, the Australian people have turned to the ABC. When there is an emergency service announcement, the Australian people have turned to the ABC. When new citizens who spoke little English wanted to find out about a historic Labor initiative called Medicare, they turned to the SBS. Since 1932, the ABC has served Australia. Since 1975, the SBS has done the same. They have each, therefore, earned the respect of the Australian people, and they deserve this parliament's respect and the support of government to continue their paths of innovation, comprehensive broadcasting and fulfilling their roles in Australian society.

As the shadow minister for citizenship and multiculturalism, I am particularly concerned with promoting the important role the SBS plays in building an inclusive and harmonious community through the broadcasting of non-English-language and multicultural programming. Its very existence is a reflection of Australia's multicultural society. Australians are entitled to free-to-air entertainment and news irrespective of their ethnicity, and in many cases the SBS's programming is focused on educating all Australians about our role in the world and the diversity of peoples that our nation comprises.

I want to take this opportunity to mention but one instance of many which highlight the wide-ranging scope and needs of the various communities who rely on the SBS. In late 2012, it became apparent following a census of community languages that the number of Maltese radio programs would be reduced. One can understand the SBS needing to perform this task when newer languages arise and, informed by the census, some older languages may become smaller as a proportion of the population as a result. As a result of that, the SBS needs to have its programming reflect those changes. My electorate of Greenway and many surrounding parts of Western Sydney are home to a very large Maltese community. Many elderly Maltese residents rely on those services. So it was with great concern that I was approached by many members of the Maltese community early last year to make me aware that the SBS, after undertaking its first major review of the SBS analog radio schedule in more than 18 years—so you can understand why it needed to undertake it—found that, according to the notification given by Peter Khalil, the director of corporate affairs:

… it was necessary to rebalance the allocation of in-language broadcast hours for different language communities in order to bring them into line with the demography of today's Australia …Under the new schedule, the Maltese language program was allocated two broadcast hours per week on the analogue schedule.

However, following consultation with the Maltese community and representations by me, I am pleased to say that it was announced, effective from 29 April last year, that the SBS would allocate additional broadcast time to the Maltese-language program on its new digital radio schedule, to be reviewed after two years.

The reason I raise this is that this was really business that the SBS needed to conduct and where it needed to reflect the community, done within the parameters of an existing budget, not within the context of a commission of audit. So, if this is the kind of dilemma that the SBS finds itself in, in serving many different community needs and also, to its credit, being innovative, I think we can imagine what would happen in the scope of a commission of audit.

I conclude by urging this government to respect the mandate of our public broadcasters to provide comprehensive broadcasting services and to enable them to be financed in order that they might continue to perform this very important role.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the motion by the member for Fremantle, relating to the ABC and SBS, noting that the principle of the motion is unfounded and unnecessary. In fact, I wonder if the member proposing this motion has actually listened to the plethora of statements made by the Minister for Communications. If she had, she would be aware that this motion is simply irrelevant. Indeed, it is nothing more than a beat-up by a rudderless opposition trying to drum up yet another baseless scare campaign.

I wish to make the following points very clear. The Australian government has no power to direct the ABC in relation to organisational matters. Neither does the government have any plans to review the ABC's charter. Internal ABC programming and editorial decisions are the responsibility of the ABC executive board. Since the ABC started, politicians and the public have had particular views on ABC programming and have made their views well known. One of the ABC's statutory obligations is to be accurate and impartial in its news and current affairs programs according to the recognised standards of objective journalism. The ABC board is required to develop codes of practice relating to programming matters and lodge these codes with the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

While the ABC has editorial independence, it is accountable to the parliament through annual reports, corporate plans, and financial and performance audits, and it appears before parliamentary committees. The government is committed to maintaining the quality, performance and efficiency of the ABC.

I note that the chairman of the ABC, the Hon. James Spigelman AC QC, announced on 11 December last year a series of independent editorial audits of the ABC's news and current affairs programs. The ABC itself intends to undertake four external audits of its news and current affairs services each year and will publicly release the audit findings.

On the matter of ABC and SBS funding, the Australian government has no plans to reduce funding for the ABC or SBS or to review their editorial policies and programming content or the responsibilities under their charters. Similarly, the government has no plan to introduce advertising on the ABC. That is yet another Labor scare tactic. The ABC and SBS receive $1.4 billion in funding from the Australian government a year. It is a routine responsibility of all government agencies to ensure that taxpayers' funds are used as efficiently as possible, and the national broadcaster should be no exception. The Department of Communications has commenced a study to examine costs for the day-to-day operations that deliver ABC and SBS programs, products and services and propose options to increase efficiency and reduce expense. The study will review not the content of what is broadcast but, rather, the cost of delivering that content and the operations that support it. The main objective of the study is to ensure that the ABC and SBS can fulfil their charter responsibilities as cost-effectively as possible and keep pace with rapidly changing practices in the broadcasting sector. I must make it clear that these studies are purely for efficiency to ensure that taxpayers' money is being spent appropriately; they are not an investigation into editorial content. The report arising from the study will be provided to the chairman of the ABC and SBS on completion.

In addition to the efficiency study, the National Commission of Audit has been provided with a broad remit to examine the scope for efficiency and productivity improvements across all areas of Commonwealth expenditure. If the commission comments on the national broadcasters, then the government will consider its comments, along with the findings of the efficiency study.

The ABC is a very special organisation. Unlike any part of the commercial media, it has to steer a middle course. That is not to say that it cannot express an opinion. But it does have a statutory and legislative obligation to be accurate and impartial in its news and information services according to the objective standards of journalism. To all those who think that the government should be regulating the media, just remember: the internet has grown up with almost no government involvement at all. The internet has been built and is governed almost entirely by the technical community that built it. It is almost a government-free zone. It is worth reflecting on that. The greatest technological and communications innovation in history was instigated by government but has grown up without it.

I look forward to seeing the efficiency studies into the ABC and SBS result in better value for the taxpayers' dollar, and I trust that the ABC's own editorial audits and board of directors, in consultation with the Australian public, will address issues expressed by the Australian audience. (Time expired)

Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the motion by the member for Fremantle and to make some comments about the importance of the ABC and SBS with regard to our national community and also to raise some concerns about what I believe may be behind comments made by some members of government with regard to the future of national broadcasters.

As we know and as both sides of the chamber have acknowledged, the ABC has performed an incredibly important role, as does SBS. The roles that they perform with regard to regional Australia in diversity and ensuring that there is a broader debate within our national political life are acknowledged widely and are important. That shows through with regard to the sort of support that shows up for the ABC and SBS and their reporting.

For example, Essential Media Communications says that ABC TV news and current affairs had some 70-plus per cent in trust in 2013. This was followed closely by SBS TV news and current affairs at 65 per cent, then ABC radio news and current affairs at 63 per cent. I make the point that trailing far behind are the commercial TV news and current affairs at 41 per cent and commercial radio news and current affairs at 38 per cent. I think that in itself makes the point about the broader view in the community about trust and professionalism within the national broadcasters.

I would also make the point, with regard to the nature of the services that it provides, that some 85 per cent of Australians believe that the ABC provides a valuable service to the community. ABC radio, over just five cities, had a weekly metropolitan reach of 4.5 million people and some 66 million ABC podcasts were downloaded in 2013. The fact is that what we have here are national organisations that provide important services and provide those services throughout the nation like, frankly, no other broadcasters do. They do it with government support, and that support needs to be maintained.

Speakers opposite have said that a lot of what is in this motion is a beat-up—it is a beat-up because there is nothing happening about the broadcasters and essentially there is an efficiency review. Well, an efficiency review and the question of what that review examines and finds, and how that review is viewed within the government, suggest to me that there is an attempt being made to soften things up and to actually create a situation where cuts can occur. It is happening in the lead-up to a budget process. We have seen this before under governments of all persuasion: actions are often taken in the lead-up to a budget in order to set the tone for changes in the budget.

We know that the Prime Minister made it very clear before the election that there would be no cuts to the ABC or to SBS—not one dollar. But we also know that he is on the record since criticising the national broadcaster regarding the nature of its reporting and making some comments around how it has portrayed its role that actually suggest a great deal of criticism. I, for one, am not uncritical of the ABC or SBS. I believe that at times they have got it wrong. At times I have been quite critical of their coverage, and I think that at times they need to review how they actually report issues. But, having said that, the principle of and the need for national broadcasters in the situation that we have in Australian society are essential. The fact that those broadcasters need to be funded properly in order to provide those services is also something that needs to be understood.

Other speakers have spoken about comments made by various ministers around the criticism of the ABC. We have also seen comments from backbenchers, like Cory Bernardi, criticising the ABC. We have also seen the Institute of Public Affairs on record making a number of comments with regard to the national broadcaster, suggesting that changes need to be made—that cuts need to be made.

Frankly, we know from the Howard government that there was a term then used with regard to a whole range of issues: it was called 'dog whistling'. We know dog whistling when we hear it, and we know dog whistling when we see it. The nature of the way that members of the government have approached the ABC in recent times suggests dog whistling. It suggests that attempts are being made to soften up the Australian community for cuts to the ABC and SBS. It suggests that what we are seeing is an attempt to undermine the national broadcasters with regard to the role that they play in Australian society.

I would urge the government to think very carefully before moving down this track. The fact is that the ABC and SBS provide essential services throughout this country and they provide them well. They are not without criticism, but they ought to be celebrated as being premier providers of news, current affairs and community engagement throughout our society. They need to be supported. They do not need to be attacked in the manner in which this government looks to be doing it.

Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Laurie Ferguson (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is great to be able to speak on this motion regarding the ABC and SBS and to follow on from some of the very wide-ranging debates that we have seen over the last half hour or so. The motion can be boiled down to two issues. One issue is whether the government should direct the ABC on how to manage editorial content. The answer to that is, of course, no. The second issue is whether the government should ensure that the taxpayers get good value out of what the ABC does, and the answer to that is absolutely yes. It is entirely consistent with support for the ABC to say that the ABC should be required to do a good job with the substantial taxpayer funds it has. It would be an abrogation of responsibility if a government did not make sure that the ABC was being operated as efficiently as it could be.

When it comes to editorial content, the ABC has an obligation to provide accurate and impartial commentary in its news and current affairs. It is obviously a matter for the board to satisfy itself that that is what the ABC is in fact doing, and it is good to see those remarks from the chairman in recent times regarding the processes that he will be putting in place. I have served on the boards of a number of media organisations and if I were on the board of the ABC I would certainly want to make sure that it was appropriately meeting its requirement to provide accurate and impartial reporting. A simple way of doing that—as the chairman has put in place—is to have regular external reviews or a subcommittee of the board, but it does seem to me that it is incumbent upon the board to satisfy itself on that question. The only way the board can satisfy itself on that question is if it asks the question and reviews the issue on a regular basis, because accuracy and impartiality are important.

It is also entirely appropriate that, from time to time, the editorial policies of the ABC are criticised. There would not be a person in this chamber who agrees with absolutely everything the ABC says. Just as the ABC would fight for its independence and for its capacity to be able to speak freely, so should each of us be able to speak freely on matters related to the ABC. I know there have been many ABC reports that I certainly have not agreed with in their editorial tone, and no doubt that occurs right across the board.

It is also important that the ABC is efficient. The ABC is not a hermetically sealed organisation that cannot ever be questioned and cannot ever be subject to change. We all have to change because if we do not move forward then, by definition, we are going backwards. The ABC should look at its efficiency, and the sorts of things that the current review is looking at are very important. These are issues like how much the ABC spends on programming as a percentage of its total expenditure, and you want that number to be as high as possible; how the ABC manages its broadcast operations from an engineering perspective and whether they are as efficient as they could be in an environment where the technology around broadcasting and video file compression is changing pretty much by the week; and whether the cooperation across the different levels of the ABC is as integrated as it could be between broadcast, radio and digital. These are the sorts of questions that a sensible review would look at.

I am certainly heartened by the fact that Peter Lewis, former CFO of Seven—who, coincidentally or not, was CFO at Seven at a time when it was very successful in the 2000s—is leading that review, and I am sure that that review will look into these issues related to the ABC's efficiency. I served with Mr Lewis on the board of Sky News, and always found him to be a very intelligent and conscientious gentleman, and I am sure he will do a great job with this upcoming review.

Clearly editorial policy is a matter for the ABC—it is not appropriate for the government to dictate and editorial position, and it is not intending to do so. But the government will fight hard, as it should, to ensure that the ABC operates efficiently. And that is precisely what we are doing.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.