Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

So that I can finish my speech, I will withdraw imputations against sitting Greens senators but maintain my comments about Mr Graeme Wood, the biggest single donor to any political party in the history of this country and this parliament. Senator Ludlam is well versed to understand advertising and commercial activity. This is a debate and the first speaker who led off the debate was Senator Conroy. It is clear, for those who might have heard Senator Conroy's speech, why he has been sacked as the opposition spokesman on communications. You will recall that it was Senator Conroy who gave to Australia the greatest mishmash of communications activity with the NBN. It was not a bad idea, but leaving a guy who has had no experience in business whatsoever—a guy whose history involves student politics, working for a union, working for a politician and then being a politician—to try to implement Australia's largest ever business undertaking was just doomed to failure, as it did. Mr Turnbull, all credit to him, has picked up the pieces and has tried to get the NBN back on track. Mr Acting Deputy President, you might remember that Senator Conroy and most of the Greens political party were part of a government that, on the eve of the 2010 election, looked the television cameras and the Australian public directly in the eye and the then leader, Ms Gillard, said: 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' And of course it took the then Labor government no more than a few weeks to break that promise and bring in the carbon tax, which they had solemnly promised they never would and which, in fact, as a promise, won them the 2010 election. So with Senator Conroy drawing attention to that dark period in the Labor Party's history it is understandable that even the current Labor leader does not want Senator Conroy involved in the communications portfolio at all.

Senator Ludlam wanted an assurance from the government. I am sure the minister will deal with this more fully in his concluding remarks, but you asked the question, Senator Ludlam, and here is the answer: no, there is no intention to sell off the ABC or to privatise it. If I might quote an interjection from my colleague Senator O'Sullivan—'More's the pity,' but that will not happen.

But the ABC and the SBS, like everybody else, have to play their part in a bit of belt tightening. You remember it was the Labor-Greens government that, from a $60 billion credit at the end of the Howard era, went on to run up a debt that, if unchecked, would have reached $600 billion. This is a debt that is costing every Australian $3 million per day in interest. That is why the ABC and the SBS have to tighten their belts, just the same as everyone else. Senator Ludlam made a useful comment about senators taking jobs in an industry like communications. If we did that, Senator Ludlam, I repeat: we would be earning $500,000, $600,000 or $700,000, like the presenter of Q&A does. Do you ever criticise him, Senator Ludlam? Of course not. Why not? Because Q&A and many other programs like that are really mouthpieces for the Greens and for the Labor Party. I am not anti-ABC. In fact, I am a great supporter of rural ABC. Some of their programs are reasonable, but I never torture myself by watching Q&A or the Sunday morning program, whatever it is called. It is just one commentator after another constantly running the Labor Party's lines and the Green's lines. But they continue to receive funding and they will always receive funding from the coalition government.

Senator Ludlam tried to use his star status as a Twitter user. He needs another one of those viral things that saved his bacon at the last election—only, I might say, after we had to have another election. Senator Ludlam is looking for that. He is trying to find something that might attract the Twittersphere, so he makes up any lie that might get him a run on the Twittersphere. But you wanted to know about advertising—