Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to standing order 74(5), I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Senator Fifield, for an explanation as to why answers have not yet been provided to question on notice No. 7, lodged on 12 November. The question relates to funding of the ABC, particularly relating to its capacity around the country and the kind of contracting that the ABC is up to. Senator Fifield, recognising that you are the representing minister here, I hope that Minister Turnbull has given you something useful to tell the chamber. I recognise that Minister Turnbull has a lot on his plate, taking on demented plutocrats past and present. But an answer to this question is now—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ludlam, you asked the minister for an explanation. You have not given the minister for a chance, having gone on—

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a very detailed request for an explanation.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think you have asked your question, and I intend to call the minister, unless you have something additional to add.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As long as I am able to make some remarks after the minister has spoken.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You will have an opportunity after the minister has given a response. Minister?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that Senator Ludlam's detailed and multifaceted question required detailed analysis by the ABC. I am advised that the provision of the response has been delayed as a result of the internal processes in the ABC, due to the need to audit security and payroll data. I will, on behalf of the minister, table the response at the earliest opportunity.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will not detain the chamber for long. I thank the minister for providing that information on behalf of Minister Turnbull. I do acknowledge that this is a complex question; it has multiple parts. It relates among other things to the closure of specific units within the ABC providing specialist programming, both radio and television broadcasts, and also the increased casualisation and outsourcing that we are seeing within the ABC. The question goes to the sustainability of funding for our ABC, the national broadcaster; the degree to which funding shortages are driving ever-increasing outsourcing; and the running down of production capacity in states other than New South Wales—and, you could argue, Victoria—particularly Western Australia, Tasmania and South Australia.

The ABC has a large and relatively new studio in East Perth in Western Australia which operates practically empty for much of the week

The ABC is already juggling an immensely tight budget, largely as a consequence of more than a decade of neglect and funding cuts by the former Howard government. The ABC and SBS are now facing extraordinary challenges on two fronts. I do acknowledge former communications minister Senator Stephen Conroy for beginning to address and turn around the finances of both the ABC and SBS, which were indeed on starvation funding.

The ABC is having to wear direct threats on two sides: firstly, to its editorial independence by repeated criticisms and attacks from the Prime Minister on down and, secondly, through the so-called efficiency review into public broadcasting. This is where I think some timely answers to the questions that we have put through Senator Fifield to Minister Turnbull would help give some comfort.

We know that the ABC appears at item 50 on the Institute of Public Affairs hit list. Item 50 says, effectively, 'Break the ABC up and let the private sector get on with the job.' I put this proposition to Mr Mark Scott in budget estimates this time last week. His comment was, 'That would be catastrophic.' SBS, a beloved national broadcaster, appears at item 51 on the IPA's hit list, which effectively says, 'Sell them. Just get rid of SBS; it is surplus to requirements.' It is unbelievable.

Senator Fifield, I am interested to know what confidence can the Australian public have that the Abbott government is not simply pursuing a vendetta—a peculiar, personal vendetta—against public broadcasting. Whether you justify it in terms of the so-called efficiency review or whether you think the ABC is simply being unpatriotic and reporting things that you would prefer that it did not, the ABC is not the equivalent of a Chinese state-owned broadcaster. It is fiercely independent, it is beloved by the vast majority of Australians and it should be left alone.

The best thing that Minister Turnbull could do with this portfolio would be to increase and lift the funding of our national broadcasters—both the ABC and SBS. A first step towards regaining the confidence of the Australian public would be to provide an answer to these questions which are now some 2½ months overdue. I thank the chamber.

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

I would like to speak to the motion to take note. I am not quite sure what Senator Ludlam's discussion then had to do with taking note of why the question had not been answered, which is what I understood this was all about. But it did remind me how, in the days of the Labor government—the Labor Party supported by the Greens—refused to allow the ABC to provide information that we sought on many occasions on questions about the payments made to senior broadcasters of the ABC. I wonder why Senator Ludlam is now so keen to get these answers when, back in those days, he was never keen to insist on the Labor Party providing answers at all.

Although it was not germane to the motion, Senator Ludlam did carry on at some length about the ABC having an efficiency dividend. I think most Australians and most government departments will think, scratch their heads and say, 'Now, everybody else has efficiency dividends. Why is it that the ABC should be excused from these efficiency dividends?' It is an interesting question that perhaps Senator Ludlam may at some other time be able to explain. Why should the ABC be set aside whilst education, health—do not quote me on those; I am not on the inner circle in what is going to happen in the budget—and all other departments, I suspect, will be asked to contribute to paying off the Labor Party's $600 billion debt that they ran up with the support of the Greens?

I just note in passing that Senator Ludlam talks favourably about the SBS. I do not mind the SBS. I think it is almost self-funding itself—I do not have the figures in front of me just now—but it is more efficient and it has advertising from the public—that is, from industry. I am not one to suggest that the ABC should raise its own revenue.

I do note Senator Ludlam's praise of the former minister, Senator Conroy. I do not want to go into that, except to say I know Senator Conroy did try to help the ABC by—against all advice from his department and from independent sources—giving the contract for Australia's international broadcasting to the ABC, when all of the sensible advice was to give it to an organisation that was seen to be able to do that in a more balanced way and in a way that was in Australia's interests. But perhaps that is what Senator Ludlam was getting at.

Lest I be misunderstood on this, I just want to say I have no vendetta against the ABC. ABC radio, particularly in regional Australia, does a magnificent job. I could not say quite the same about their news bulletins and their current affairs programs emanating from a capital city, but certainly in many instances—in the work they do in regional and rural Australia in radio in particular—they are a wonderful organisation.

Also on that line, the ABC for many years has been running a wonderful program called Heywire, which brings young people from rural and remote Australia—people who would never normally have the opportunity—to Canberra to see what other people, or other kids from the closer capital cities, see quite regularly. They bring them into Canberra. I have great regards for the ABC in that instance. I support the motion of Senator Ludlam that we should take note of Senator Fifield's answer.

Question agreed to.