Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Employment (Senator Abetz) and the Assistant Minister for Health (Senator Nash) to questions without notice asked by Senators Lundy and Peris today relating to funding for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

I move this motion with some incredulity because what is going on here is that the government is now saying that the ABC is responsible for the distribution and impact of their cuts. That is like cutting off Aunty ABC's arms and then getting cranky at her for bleeding all over the floor. You cannot do it like that. You cannot make a cut and then blame the organisation that you are applying the cuts to for the damage that is caused. And yet that is exactly what we saw across the chamber today from senators Nash and Abetz in their answers to questions from Senator Peris and me.

The hypocrisy is quite galling. I do not think it is lost on anybody listening to today's question time. They would be shocked and appalled by what they heard coming from the mouths of government ministers today. We know that there have been unprecedented cuts made to our national broadcaster. We know that we were promised, prior to the election, that these cuts would not be occurring. So this is, formally, a broken promise by the Abbott government. It is, formally, a betrayal of the trust placed in the Abbott government by the people of Australia when they cast their votes in the days following that statement. And what we have seen around the country in the last few days is, I believe, just the beginning of the outrage being expressed by Australians to this decision.

I want to take the ministers to task on a number of issues, but particularly one that is dear to my heart—and I know that Senator Peris will follow up on this—and that is the broadcasting of Australian women's sport. Now, most people in this chamber, if they have not been living under a rock, would know that this is a challenging topic. We know that there is a profound inequity in the way that women's sport is presented in the Australian media, and we know that the commercial television broadcasting statistics show that it is still in single percentage figures—despite us being half of the population.

Various interventions, including a consensus report during the Howard government era on what we needed to do to support the coverage of women's sport, involved creating a program that allowed sports and broadcasters to work together.

Now—surprise, surprise!—many Australian sportswomen found themselves working very closely with the Australian national broadcaster, the ABC, to put women's sport to air. What we have now, after years and years of partnership—and, frankly, a battle against some of what I think are the poorer decisions of our commercial broadcasters in choosing not to broadcast women's sport in this country—is that women's sports find themselves now being cut. We find the WNBA, the Women's National Basketball League, being cut; we find the W-League, the women's football league, being cut. We know that netball, which screened on the ABC, was able to develop an audience following—so much so that they now show their product, if you like, their national league on Foxtel. Obviously, their final is on free-to-air. We know that their success would not have happened without the relationship they have had the ABC. I like to think that the W-League and the WNBL would be able to find a place on a commercial television station, but the evidence to date is that is not occurring. So to cut them off at the knees like this, through these cuts, is a greater travesty than perhaps what first meets the eye.

These things cannot be fixed overnight. These things have been shaped in our community over a long period of time, and they have culminated with the coverage we had during campaign after campaign by many people in this place—men and women alike—over many, many years. So to undo it at this point does far more damage than the mere fact of the cut as it is being applied.

Sport in this country is part of a continuum, a circle. If we do not have our role models on our national television broadcasters, if we do not see women excelling in their sports, then we do not have that continuum that inspires the next generation of young girls and women to keep playing. You start to break what is great about Australian sport when you unpick the ABC's ability to provide that coverage, when you break that continuum of what is great about Australian sport. And you do it in a way that targets women, because it is only the ABC that has shown a willingness to provide that coverage. How dare this government break that continuum for women and their sports in this country? As Lauren Jackson said, this is the passive disenfranchisement of women in yet another way from this government, and it is completely unacceptable. (Time expired)

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in response to Senator Lundy's motion to take note of answers. I want to be very categorical: our position was not that the ABC and the SBS—the public broadcasters—should be immune from savings, but that those savings should be undertaken in an informed manner. That was the reason why the minister established, back in January, the efficiency study, the Lewis review, to assist the public broadcasters to manage their businesses more efficiently and effectively, and to examine specifically back-of-house costs of operation and to identify savings through increased efficiencies and to reduce expenses without impacting on the quality of the extent of programing.

The efficiency study did find that these savings were definitely achievable if the ABC was willing to tackle the inefficiencies in its back office operations and, effectively, get more bang for their buck—or get more bang for fewer taxpayer dollars. Of course the easiest way for the ABC would be to cut costs to programing rather than tackle their outdated business and administrative practices. The efficiency study was designed to make the public broadcasters look at their back-of-office operations and to find those efficiencies, so it is totally disingenuous for those opposite to now come forward and to basically go on about cuts to programing when this efficiency was about back office operations.

It is clear that since the draft of that study was announced in May the public broadcasters, especially the ABC, have been busily looking for efficiencies. I have a copy of a document, which is dated 24 November; it is a very detailed document which is headed 'ABC News proposal for change'. It says:

The Managing Director, Mark Scott, has announced proposals for wide-ranging changes designed to secure ABC's future in the digital media era. As part of that process, News management has been reviewing every aspect of the news operation to find savings and to ensure that we are strongly positioned to deliver our world-class journalism to audiences when, where and how they want it. We are proposing measures aimed at improving ABC's news and current affairs service to audiences across all platforms and enhancing our reporting from across the nation and around the world.

And then this document goes on, in quite a lot of detail, to specifically identify those areas. It says:

To ensure we have the right mix of skills to address the future needs of a multiplatform operation, in many cases we propose pooling staff with similar skill sets for selection for redundancy, not only those affected by the discontinuation.

The point that I am making is that the ABC has already gone through this process. The document talks about changes to current affairs. It talks about proposing initiatives in current affairs that would 'better showcase our agenda setting reporting'. It talks about 'investigations and analysis across 24-hour news platforms and making them more accessible to audiences'. And it goes into detailed key proposals that they have already identified. On the international front, it says:

We want our international operations to be more responsive, with greater flexibility to be on the ground when and where major news breaks in any corner of the globe.

Then it goes on to identify about 10 key proposals in relation to international operations. I move to state and territory newsrooms. It says:

We want to offer state and territory audiences more responsive approaches to coverage of local news, more on-the-spot coverage—

and, again, gives detailed key proposals as to how they are going to effect that. News operations is another area that they have looked at. It says:

We are proposing changes designed to make the news operations management and support structures more efficient, consistent and effective.

Again, they detail changes there. They have also looked at management and support teams. It says:

News management has reviewed how we can most efficiently resource structure and utilise management.

This is what the review and the efficiency review was about, and the ABC have identified the areas already.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government is going to rue the day it broke the election promise it made to the Australian people of 'no cuts to the ABC or SBS'. The Prime Minister made that election promise but is now making $252 million worth of cuts to the ABC—half a billion dollars of cuts in total when added to the cuts to SBS. The government will rue this day. Amongst the plethora of lies this government has told the Australian people, I believe this will be one of the ones the government will most regret.

The Australian people are not stupid. They can see a lie for what it is. They trust the ABC, but this government is attacking it and gutting it. It is destroying its capacity to remain the national broadcaster that Australians love and trust. It is not just an attack on the national broadcaster; it is an attack on the Australian stories, past and present, that the ABC tells in Australian homes. It is an attack on our Australian democracy.

Senator Abetz lectured the Senate about what the ABC ought to be, but it is the government that is gutting it so much that it will be prevented from being what it ought to be. It is forcing the ABC to make shocking cuts to deal with this loss of $252 million over five years. What is the result? It is resulting in the loss of 400 jobs, in the closure of the South Australian TV production unit, in the cancellation of five radio programs—and on and on it goes. Of course the government knew it would result in staff cuts. Of course the government knew it would impact on programming. How else would the ABC deal with such a devastating cut to its bottom line? That is the dishonesty being displayed by Senator Abetz. He knew very well that the ABC would not be able to continue to be what it ought to be—because of the government's savage ideological cuts.

That is exactly what this is all about. The coalition has an ideological bent against the ABC. They do not like the ABC. They do not want a national broadcaster. They do not want Australian stories being told. They do not want regional stories being told. Not even the National Party will stand up to fight these cuts. Not even Senator Nash is speaking out against the cuts to coverage of women's sport that will result. The ABC's coverage of local events and issues is vital to community life in Australia. This $252 million cut is going to rip the heart out of local communities.

There are two levels of hypocrisy in what the government has done. Most obviously, the government has simply lied to the Australian people. Prime Minister Abbott, on the eve of the election, said very clearly—and we can all watch it over and over on YouTube—that there would be 'no cuts to the ABC or SBS'. That was a lie. Now, on top of that, he has lied about the lie! It simply will not wash with Australian voters. Backbenchers within his own government now want him to come out and admit that he has lied. Today Fairfax reported that Liberal MP Craig Laundy spoke out at a party meeting, urging the Prime Minister to call a spade a spade and to stop denying that the government had broken its election promise. Australians want the government to stop its ideological attack on the ABC—it is coming from within its own ranks, it is coming from the hundreds of people who rallied outside the front of Parliament House. Leave our ABC alone—stop these cuts to the ABC.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call Senator Seselja, I remind honourable senators that it is not appropriate to reflect on another member of this parliament.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to touch on a few issues in the five minutes I have. One is the need to be making savings across the board. The Labor Party is now putting an argument that the ABC should be immune from savings—in contrast to all other government agencies that have to find savings. Under the former Labor government, agencies right across the board had to find savings. Yet the Labor Party's argument now is that the ABC should not have to find savings. It is not often that I quote a Canberra Times editorial, but I will. I will quote a couple of Canberra Times editorials on this.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I could read some out about you! They are not very complimentary about you.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are a lot of bad ones, I can tell you! But I do occasionally quote them. The Canberra Times, a few days ago, said:

However, the Coalition also promised, first and foremost, to restore the budget to surplus. Given the cuts that have been visited on other public sector institutions, it's only reasonable the ABC should be asked to bear its share of the burden, and to do so in such a way that preserves programming as much as possible.

I think that is a very reasonable point and I think it is something most people would agree with—that savings should be able to be found in the ABC.

We know in fact that there are many savings to be found. Senator Abetz quoted a little bit from a Fairfax article by Louise Evans, a former manager of Radio National, that appeared yesterday. She was talking about some of the waste at Radio National. She says that she was:

… shocked by the culture, waste, duplication and lax work place practices exercised in some pockets of Radio National. I was even more shocked by the failure of the executive to want to do anything about it.

She goes on to say:

One problem … was the so-called lifers, a pocket of predominantly middle-aged, Anglo-Saxon staff who had never worked anywhere other than the ABC, who were impervious to change, unaccountable, untouchable and who harboured a deep sense of entitlement.

They didn't have a 9-5 mentality. They had a 10-3 mentality. They planned their work day around their afternoon yoga class. They wore thongs and shorts to work, occasionally had a snooze on the couch after lunch and popped out to Paddy's Market to buy fresh produce for dinner before going home.

There is waste to be found.

We saw recent examples. We have two public broadcasters getting, between them, billions of dollars over the next few years. In fact, even under the changes, the ABC will still be receiving $5.2 billion over the next five years. So let's not pretend that for $5.2 billion over the next five years they cannot fund women's sport. Let's not pretend that they cannot do that if they really want to. They are refusing to make the savings in other areas. One example is outbidding SBS for Asian Cup rights. We have SBS—publicly funded but able to actually get advertising revenue when they bid for the football—being outbid by another public broadcaster, upping the price to taxpayers. Do taxpayers really care whether it is going to be on SBS or ABC? I would argue that SBS is well-placed to deliver very good football coverage as it is something that they have been doing for a long time. So that is the kind of waste that we see.

Let's be clear on this as well. We have seen it said today—

Senator Conroy interjecting—

Senator Conroy can interject all he likes.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ignore the interjections.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will ignore the interjections as I highlight this. ABC board member Dr Stanley today, on Radio National, I think, this morning defended the cuts despite being anguished about them, saying that the regional newsrooms were 'probably going to be cut anyway'. So the ABC was already planning on making these kinds of cuts, and they are now using these savings as an excuse to make the kinds of cuts that they wanted to make anyway. Instead of looking internally, instead of looking at Ultimo, they have gone out to the regions and made the cuts, because presumably they judge that somehow they will therefore be able to blame the government for the cuts that they wanted to make any way. The room is there to cut in other areas. Mark Scott has made these decisions. I believe that many of them are unreasonable decisions, but they are for him to take responsibility for. (Time expired)

Nova Peris (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise in relation to answers provided in question time today about the cuts that the Abbott government are making to the ABC. The answers provided today simply state that this government do not care about the impact of the cuts that they are making to the ABC. Senator Nash, the Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate, said today that they take no responsibility for the ABC and that it should be the responsibility of the ABC, not this government. This is a complete cop-out. It is like a government cutting funding to a school and then directing all the complaints to the principal. It is like a government cutting funding to a hospital and then blaming doctors when the cuts take effect and beds are closed. But that is the nature of this government. They do not care; they do not take responsibility for their broken promises and their funding cuts. This is a government that promised no cuts to the ABC. Their denials are ridiculous and everybody knows it.

As my colleague Senator Kate Lundy said today, we are concerned gravely about the coverage of women's sports. It would be fair to say that when the Abbott government cabinet sat down they did not realise the impact that they would have on female sport. Perhaps Minister Julie Bishop was away that day or she simply did not care. It is clear that the Prime Minister, who is the Minister for Women, did not care. Outside of the ABC and SBS, there is very little televised free-to-air coverage of women's sport in this country. This year the ABC televised the Basketball World Championships for the first time on free-to-air television. They also televised the Women's National Basketball League and the women's soccer league. Both of these have been cut as a result of this broken promise. I have been told that the women's basketball league has been covered for of 34 years—but not anymore. The Australian Opals star, Lauren Jackson, as I mentioned today in question time, said that women's sport is the 'sacrificial lamb' of the government's cuts. She described the Abbott government's cuts to women's basketball as 'a very dark day for women's sport'—and it is; she is 100 per cent correct. She also said:

The Liberal government doesn't really put sport ahead of anything else, especially women's sport, and that's why I thought it would be one of the things to go.

She is one of the greatest sporting stars in Australian history, and this is what she thinks of the Abbott government.

I know that the ABC has been a strong supporter of both men's hockey and women's hockey over the decades. In fact, the ABC is televising the Champions Trophy later this month and in early December. Perhaps this will be the last time that we have coverage of world-class hockey in this country. Maybe we will be left to watch hockey once every four years during the Olympic Games. When we look at sport in this country, we all know that there is so much coverage and saturation on television of football and cricket for young men. That is enough incentive for young boys to get out of bed every day, dare to dream and have aspirations of becoming a champion. It lets them look at role models who go out there and provide a positive influence on the youth of today. What will there be for women? What will there be for the young girls of this country who will wake up every day and not see any more women playing basketball and women playing soccer? These are world champions. Clearly some of the greatest young women who have dared to dream in this country will have their dreams now broken because of the cuts. There will be a lack of positive role models for the generation of young girls in this country.

What we are making is a clear statement that it is good enough to have men's basketball and men's soccer televised, but women's basketball and women's soccer is no longer going to be televised in this country. We cannot put it on the ABC and make them call the shots as to what we should be shown in this country. The cuts will have a profound effect on the future sporting success of this country, particularly young women.

Question agreed to.