Senate debates
Tuesday, 28 March 2006
Matters of Public Importance
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
5:05 pm
Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source
I must say I have been absolutely astonished by some of the submissions from the other side and from the crossbenches. I understand that they are trying to make the argument that this government is continuing its attempts to undermine the independence of the ABC. We have had phrases like ‘deep and abiding hatred,’ and ‘Donald McDonald is hated by cabinet’. A federal cabinet minister, Amanda Vanstone, was sitting right here and she said, ‘Not by me.’ Of course there is no evidence to support this. This is just conjecture—the normal rubbish of those people who are just trying to wage some pathetic, desperate attempt to undermine the Howard government’s excellent record in most areas.
People talk generally about significant taxpayer funding. I remind this place that in the triennium 2003-06, $2.3 billion was provided, and $793 million was provided this year. We provided an extra $4.2 million over and above what we extended—a bonus. We have assisted the ABC in every way, particularly with the increase in program purchasing funding which actually went up to $54 million over the last three years. It is ironic that those on the other side should stand in this place and somehow make the tie between removing the independence of the ABC and a lack of funding. The single largest drop in the funding for the ABC was in the late eighties and nineties and that happened under Labor.
I would have to concede that, if you look closely at the history, in 1996 there was a drop in funding for the ABC under this government—as there was across every single agency to try to deal effectively with the black hole, economically, that was left by the Labor government. I concede that. But from that point, historically, the funding for the ABC has continued to grow and in fact, right at the moment, it enjoys a level that it never enjoyed under the Labor Party.
We talked about a review. People have been spinning these reviews around the place here today. We have had a review. We constantly review particularly the efficiency and adequacy of funding. It is interesting to note statements about independence. We actually ensured that the terms of reference were drafted in consultation with the ABC. We ensured that we consulted with this particular broadcaster and that the terms of reference were what they considered appropriate to consider the adequacy and efficiency of that funding. We engaged an external consultant from KPMG. Again, we have propriety, transparency and facts rather than silly and fatuous conjecture from the other side.
No comments