Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, three proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Collins:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

Strong, well-funded and independent public broadcasting in Australia by the ABC and SBS.

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This MPI debate is a chance to expose the duplicity of those opposite, because, as we know, they speak with a forked tongue. While several Liberal frontbenchers have stated publicly that they will not sell the ABC, we on this side of the chamber know that attacking independent public media is actually in their DNA. We know that the resolution of the Liberal Party's federal council to sell the ABC reflects what those opposite would really like to do but just won't admit. They won't admit it because they know how much the public love their ABC.

The other thing we know is that at their federal council not one member or senator stood up to speak against the resolution—not one. We know that although they say one thing on that side they often do another. Just looking at the record of what has happened with the ABC over time, I strongly remember the words that the then opposition leader, Tony Abbott, spoke before the 2013 federal election: 'No cuts to the ABC or SBS.' That was the promise delivered by the then opposition leader, Tony Abbott, on the eve of the 2013 election. There were no 'if's, there were no 'but's and there were no caveats. What did he say? He said that there would be no cuts to the ABC or the SBS. But we know that what they say before an election and what they do after the election are two completely different issues.

What did we get after the last election? Up until this year's budget this government has overseen $282 million in cuts to the ABC. And what's that resulted in? It's resulted in 800 jobs being lost. All of these cuts, we have to remember, have been overseen by Mr Turnbull, first as communications minister and later as the Prime Minister. These cuts have obviously forced the ABC to take drastic action. They've led to the loss of transcription services for the deaf and hearing impaired, an end to short-wave radio transmission in the Northern Territory, and programming cuts such as changes to Catalyst and cuts to music programs on Radio National. In my home state of Tasmania they've led to the loss of the local edition of the current affairs program 7.30. Not being satisfied with these assaults on the ABC, the government has delivered a further $83.7 million cut in this year's budget. We all know what'll happen then: more regional services will be lost as a result.

Year after year, Newspoll's ABC appreciation surveys show really high levels of satisfaction. In fact, more than 80 per cent of Australians, year after year, are saying that the ABC performs a valuable role. Given the important services the ABC provides to regional Australia, we've got to wonder why the Nationals continue to betray their constituents in the bush, failing to stand up to their coalition partner's relentless assault against the ABC. In fact, in question time today, when there were questions about the ABC to that side of the chamber, it was very noticeable that the Nationals were very, very quiet. Some of them were hanging their heads, and I presume it was in shame—as they should be.

In addition to their savage cuts, the government has also made two announcements, and we mustn't forget this. These two announcements could have a chilling effect on our nation's flagship public broadcaster, and they're both part of the dirty deal done with One Nation to secure their support for the abolition of the two-out-of-three cross-media control rule. One announcement was of a competitive neutrality inquiry into the ABC and SBS, which is really obviously aimed at attacking and gutting public broadcasting in Australia. There's no doubt that this concession was secured by One Nation, with the aim of setting the stage for the end of public broadcasting. After all, it was One Nation who threatened to hold the government's legislation to ransom unless they cut ABC funding by $600 million over the forward estimates. The other element of this grubby deal which attacks the ABC is the proposed change to the ABC's charter to require the broadcaster to be 'fair and balanced'. We do want fair and balanced media reporting, but we don't want a misrepresentation of what is fair and balanced by giving antivaxxers, climate change sceptics and Holocaust deniers equal time, and that's what you guys want to happen.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Has your time expired?

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, your time has expired, Senator Bilyk. I was being distracted by all the interjections.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President Marshall. As much as I was enjoying that—as you clearly were—I was trying to bring your attention to the clock. Anyway, here we are now, and it's a great pleasure to make a contribution to today's MPI discussion, as noted, around future funding for the ABC and SBS, and the need to retain them as strong, well-funded and independent authorities or entities. Like my colleague and good friend, Senator Bilyk, I too appreciate and support the work of our public broadcasting entities and am a regular listener to the ABC in Tasmania. This morning, I was on ABC with Leon Compton, a great—

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Were you at federal council?

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bilyk, you know you shouldn't interject from outside your place.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President Marshall, for inviting her back to her chair so she could continue to interject. As a regular contributor to the ABC Mornings program, along with Senator Bilyk's good friend and colleague Senator Lisa Singh, I too am an avid supporter of the ABC and what they do. For many generations now I have benefited from public broadcasting services through both the ABC and SBS.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Were you at federal council? If you were at federal council, why didn't you speak against it?

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In order to satisfy Senator Bilyk: no, I wasn't at federal council; I was with my family in Tasmania. It is a service that is absolutely valued by Tasmanians in regional communities, which Senator Bilyk also represents, and many people in the more densely populated areas as well. The MPI sets out for us to discuss the need for the public broadcasting entities in Australia to be strong. The first point it refers to is the need for them to be well funded. I think it's important to put on record the facts around the funding of the ABC and SBS, and the fact that this financial year $1.3 billion of funding has been allocated to our two public broadcasting entities, taking into account that SBS also attracts some commercial funding through the provision of the ability to sell commercial advertising spots—something that not everyone in the community agreed with but which enabled SBS to make ends meet a little bit better.

Another point that the Minister for Communications made in question time today was around the fact that funding for the ABC in particular is set over a three-year basis, and so the particular funding round we have at the moment is coming to a conclusion. As Senator Bilyk has already noted, funding for the upcoming triennium has been set with a pause on indexation. The fact remains, though, that over the period from 2019-20 to 2021-22 $3.2 billion of funding has been allocated to the ABC. That puts into context this claim of a cut that has been put out there and screamed about by the opposition—the fact that no more than 0.26c in any dollar of funding for that period is being held by way of this indexation pause.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a cut.

Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's right.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not a cut, as suggested by Senator Bilyk. Additionally, I should point out that SBS has received extra funding, which I'm sure we won't hear about today from opposition senators, to the tune of $14 million, something welcomed by its managing director, Mr Ebeid, as Senator Keneally would recall from estimates.

As for the characterisation of this indexation pause, it is something that governments do when it comes to budget management. We make decisions about how funding should be allocated, whether indexation is increased, decreased or paused.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's reduced. This is a special hit on the ABC.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It happens right across government, not just with the ABC, but those listening would be forgiven for thinking that it happens only to the ABC. It's a budget management tool that, as I said, happens right across a number of agencies: the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of the Environment and Energy. Those sorts of agencies are also subject to budget management, like any other government agency. It is not ideologically driven, as those opposite would characterise it. It's about how to actually manage the budget, something we take seriously, which is very important in terms of making the budget balanced.

We also have underway the efficiency review of the ABC. I note that nearly five years ago, or four years ago at least, the Lewis review was undertaken into the ABC and public broadcasting in Australia, noting, as any representatives of the ABC would, that it is a dynamic and fast-changing environment when it comes to media in this country. So, to keep pace with the times it's important to ensure that these entities are as efficient as possible when it comes to the amount of money allocated to them.

When talking about efficiency, it's important also to highlight some comments made by Mr Gaven Morris, one of the senior executives of the ABC. In May this year Mr Morris, in an address to the Press Club in Melbourne, said in regard to funding and, as he referred to them, reductions in funding:

Make no mistake, there is no more fat to cut at the ABC …

He said that from this point on we're cutting 'into the muscle'. Following on from that we learnt that the ABC decided to award its executives $2.6 million in bonuses, to spend $10 million on market research and promotions and to spend another $1.5 million on consultants. So, it's a little odd when we hear there's nothing left to cut—there's nothing there, there's no room, not a cent, to look for further efficiency, but those senior executives at the ABC will be able to award themselves rather large and handsome bonuses. I think it's important to make sure that people listening to this debate understand that in the eyes of the ABC executives there is room to award themselves bonuses—but nothing else in the way of savings!

In regard to preserving the independence of public broadcasters, as we all know there is legislated independence for the public broadcasters in this country when it comes to matters of content and operation. So, how the ABC manage their staff, for instance—how they allocate them and where they allocate them to—is a matter for the ABC, as we have heard the minister say repeatedly in this place and in Senate estimates. And apparently no-one is allowed to complain about the content of the ABC's works, and that includes Mr Shorten, who we all know is a regular correspondent with the ABC, as I have learnt from many of my ABC friends.

The fact that the ABC is in charge of its content, its production and all operational matters is important to put on the record. But at the end of the day what this really comes down to is the integrity of those who make the claims that we're hearing in this place. The fact that before the last federal election we heard this thing about Medicare—that we were going to privatise it, but it never happened. I hear something very similar now. Watch out, Australia: apparently the coalition is going to privatise the ABC. I reckon we may not do that either, somehow. It's a bit like that rolled gold commitment on citizenship we got from all those Labor members and senators, which proved to be not worth the paper it was written on. (Time expired)

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to this debate, and it is an important one. Boy oh boy, aren't the Liberal Party members here in this place today absolutely confused. On the one hand they're suggesting that we should all just trust them that the ABC won't be privatised—that they won't sell it off. On the other hand, we have members in this place who sat in the meeting of the Liberal Party's federal council on the weekend and said nothing, absolutely nothing, when their peak national body voted to sell off the people's ABC. But why would we trust them anyway, because we know that over and over again this government has lied when it comes to their promises in relation to the public broadcaster. They have lied in relation to cuts to the ABC. Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, on the eve of the 2013 election, said point-blank down the lens of an SBS camera that there would be no cuts to the ABC or SBS—point-blank. Well, of course, come the budget, he whacked hundreds of millions of dollars off the ABC. We've continued to see that happen now under this Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull. So the truth of the matter is: you cannot trust the Liberal Party at all when it comes to their commitments to our public broadcaster.

The Minister for Communications himself, Mitch Fifield, says that he thinks that 'there is merit' in selling off the ABC. Georgina Downer, the Liberal Party's candidate in the seat of Mayo, in my home state of South Australia, thinks that selling off the ABC is a good idea, although she said today on the campaign trail that that's something that the IPA—her employer—believes, and it's not necessarily her opinion. Well, Ms Downer, do you just say whatever you get paid to say, or do you actually engage your own views and opinions on these issues? Of course, we know there's nothing that the people of Mayo could trust when it comes to Georgina Downer in relation to commitments on the public broadcaster. This is a person who's spent most of her adult life spruiking the idea that the public broadcaster doesn't deserve the funding that it gets currently.

Of course the Liberal Party continue to keep preselecting these people who don't think the ABC should be in public hands, don't support funding to SBS and really do not have concern for the institution—an institution that Australians absolutely love and hold dear. Australians know that the ABC can be trusted as a credible news source. In fact, it is the most trusted institution in this country. When there is a crisis, when there is an emergency, when there are bushfires in the Adelaide Hills, who do people turn to for information about what is really going on? They turn on ABC Radio, and they listen for the emergency warnings. That has happened over and over again to the people who live in the seat of Mayo up there in the Adelaide Hills.

But of course it's not just the Liberal Party who want to cut the ABC's budget; it's also Pauline Hanson and One Nation. What a sneaky, secret deal must have gone on between Pauline Hanson and the government, because we know that, this time last year, Pauline Hanson was saying that, come this budget—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson-Young, just resume your seat. Senator Williams on a point of order?

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, come 30 June this month, Senator Hanson-Young will have been in this place for 10 years, and she still hasn't learned to address people by their correct title. It's a constant point of order I take here: will you ask her to please address people in this place by their correct title?

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Williams. I just remind senators that they should address members of the other place and of this place by their correct titles.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course, I was referring to Senator Pauline Hanson, who was the leader of the One Nation party, which seems to be disintegrating under her feet as we speak. Perhaps this is because this is a person who does sneaky, dirty deals with the government to whack hundreds of millions of dollars off the public broadcaster. Hundreds of millions of dollars off the public broadcaster is what she asked the Treasurer for, only 12 months ago, and then, boy oh boy, the budget comes out, and what have we got? We've got $84 million whacked off—again—from the ABC. One Nation don't like the ABC. They hate it when ABC journalists report on what their party is doing. They must be hating the reporting that's going on this week. That is backed up now by the Liberal Party, who also hate the ABC so much that they want to sell it off. (Time expired)

Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to this debate and reflect on an address given by the Minister for Communications, Mitch Fifield, in 2008. He spoke to the Australian Adam Smith Club. There was an interesting title to his speech. 'Fiscal contraception: erecting barriers to impulsive spending', he called it. In that, he said:

Conservatives have often floated the prospect of privatising the ABC and Australia Post. There is merit in such proposals.

Those are the words of Minister Fifield. Don't take my word for it. Unless the minister has removed it, you could find this speech on his website just a few weeks ago.

Minister Fifield also told us at estimates that he is 'happy to be a member' of the IPA, a membership he says he's held for at least a decade. Of course, the IPA has advocated for the privatisation of the ABC, and IPA members Chris Berg and Sinclair Davidson have just released a book against public broadcasting, on why and how we should privatise the ABC. But Minister Fifield says he doesn't agree with his fellow IPA members. He says his views in 2008 to the Adam Smith Club that the ABC should be privatised were just the views of a 'frisky backbencher' and not what he thinks now that he's a minister in government.

But come on: does Minister Fifield really think the Australian people are that gullible, when the minister and the Liberal Party give Australians reason after reason and example after example of what their real intentions are for the ABC? On the weekend the Liberal federal council voted 39 to 10 to privatise the ABC. Fairfax media reports that four of the party's top federal officials supported the motion to privatise the ABC. Not one Liberal delegate spoke against the motion. Yet Minister Fifield, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have all been out there telling us that these votes of Liberal Party members mean nothing, that they change nothing when it comes to the Liberal government's intentions towards the ABC.

Why is it that the votes of the Liberal Party membership are apparently sacrosanct and must be respected when it comes to matters like the preselection of Liberal minister Jane Prentice but are apparently meaningless when it comes to policy around the privatisation of the ABC? Well, it's because they are not meaningless when it comes to the ABC. The views of the Liberal federal council, expressed in a vote of 39 to 10, are views that run deep through this Turnbull Liberal government. Senators Eric Abetz and Ian Macdonald regularly use this chamber to rail against the ABC. They are champions of the anti-ABC movement in the Liberal Party and in this place.

But Minister Fifield is no slouch when it comes to complaining about the ABC. He's been a vexatious complainer, in fact, to the ABC. By May 2018, he had averaged more than one complaint a month to the ABC. In January it was the date of the Hottest 100. In February it was Emma Alberici's corporate tax article. In March he complained about a Tonightly with Tom Ballardcomedy sketch. In April he complained about a Black Comedy sketch on the ABC Facebook page. In May it was the Emma Alberici story again and, again in May, commentary by political journalists on the TV show Insiders. The minister also referred the Black Comedy sketch on Facebook to ACMA, making him the first communications minister since Richard Alston in 2004 to complain to ACMA about the ABC. Minister Alston complained about the coverage of the Iraq War. Minister Fifield complained about a comedy sketch on Facebook. Why Minister Fifield complained to ACMA about ABC on Facebook is hard to understand, because ACMA has no coverage of Facebook. I don't know what point he was trying to make.

If we just looked at Minister Fifield's vexatious complaints we might be able to dismiss them as silly, irrelevant or annoying. But that is not where it ends. Minister Fifield and this Liberal government have imposed a second round of efficiency cuts—$84 million—on the ABC. This comes on top of the $25 million in cuts imposed by the Abbott Liberal government. We all remember Tony Abbott—Tony 'no cuts to the ABC' Abbott—a promise broken by the Abbott Liberal government and broken again by the Turnbull Liberal government and broken by this Liberal communications minister Fifield. Minister Fifield and this Liberal government have also launched a competitive neutrality review of the ABC, but let's label that for what it is: it is a de facto review of the ABC charter. And why are we having this review? Because the Liberals did a deal with Senator Pauline Hanson and One Nation. In fact, the Liberals have presented three bills before this Senate to satisfy a deal with Senator Hanson. Remember her threat to block the Liberal government's budget unless the government cut $600 million to ABC funding? That was really One Nation saying to the Liberals, 'It's time for you to jump on the ABC.' And what did the Liberals answer? Well, they jumped. They effectively said, 'How high would you like us to go?' They cut the funding. In fact, if we add up Tony Abbott's cuts of $250 million alongside Mitch Fifield and Malcolm Turnbull's cuts of $84 million, we are already halfway to the $600 million that Senator Pauline Hanson wants cut from the ABC.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order, Senator Williams?

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the point of order I raised with Senator Hanson-Young: I will have to make the point of order to Senator Keneally, even though she is pretty new to this place, to refer to those in this place and the other place by their correct titles, not just by their names. Could you please bring that to her attention.

Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In short, Minister Fifield and the Turnbull Liberal government have launched a multipronged, large-scale intervention against the ABC, and they want Australians to believe it is just because they want the ABC to be better, stronger and more efficient. Let's look at what these cuts by the Liberal Party will deliver to the ABC. In 2019-20 the ABC will be $14.6 million worse off. That is the full annual operating budget of both NewsRadio and Radio Australia. In 2020-21 the ABC will be $27.8 million worse off. That's the full annual operating budget of ABC Classic FM, Heywire, iview and the school-age and preschool version of the ABC KIDS app. In 2021-22 the ABC will be $41.2 million worse off. That is the full operating budget of ABC KIDS, ABC COMEDY, triple j, Double J and triple j Unearthed. Yet when Minister Fifield was asked at estimates if he could guarantee that none of these programs would be cut as a result of his efficiency review and his $84 million cut to ABC funding, he said that this was just a matter for the ABC—as if this Liberal government's $334 million of cuts to the ABC funding could have no impact on ABC programming.

Make no mistake: these upcoming by-elections and the upcoming general election are is an opportunity for Australians to show their support for the ABC. We've seen some remarkable statistics in recent times: surveys show that 70 per cent of Australians think a strong, independent ABC is critical to a healthy democracy; 60 per cent of Australians think the ABC needs a boost to its long-term funding; and 82 per cent of Australians rate the ABC as trustworthy. The ABC is a trusted institution, one that Australians look to as a place that safeguards their democracy, a place to get their news and entertainment and a place that tells their Australian stories, available to all—not behind some paywall, which is what I think the Liberals would like to see happen. When it comes to that fundamental issue of trust, it is important to remember that 82 per cent of Australians rate the ABC as trustworthy. Australians know—and the Liberal federal council it confirmed this weekend—that you cannot trust the Liberals with the ABC.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak very much in support of this matter of public importance put forward by the Labor Party:

Strong, well-funded and independent public broadcasting in Australia by the ABC and SBS.

The Nationals leader, Mr Michael McCormack—the Deputy Prime Minister, the member for Riverina and a bloke I call my mate—made a statement today:

The Nationals does not, and has no intention of ever supporting the privatisation of the ABC.

The ABC provides an invaluable service to rural and regional Australians.

From providing cricket coverage to those driving Australia's long highways, to its dedicated coverage of the agriculture sector on The Country Hour, as well as its role in supporting emergency services during natural disasters, the ABC is a crucial and much-loved institution in the regions.

The Nationals believe the ABC should invest more of its staff and resources into rural and regional Australia.

We also believe the ABC should have a legislated obligation to provide coverage to rural and regional Australia.

The Liberals and Nationals Government has a range of measures to support these aims, including legislating that the ABC Board always has at least two members from rural and regional Australia.

There it is in black and white, read out for Hansard. The government supports strong, well-funded and independent public broadcasting in Australia by the ABC and SBS. That is perfectly clear. I get on very well with the ABC. I nearly always listen to them on the radio at home. I watch TV very little but the ABC often. There's one program I do refuse to watch, though, called Q&A. I will not watch that program. There are not enough hours left in my life to waste now without watching Q&Aand a bit of smirk there from Senator Carr! I was in the audience of Q&A one night, at Tamworth, and I was disgusted with the way the questions were stacked up against the conservatives. I almost walked out at half time; I thought, 'No, never ever.' Luckily, in the 10 years I've been in this chamber, I've never been invited onto Q&A. Perhaps they know it's probably a waste of a phone call inviting me.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They do now!

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They do now; exactly! I listen to ABC Tamworth radio. Kelly Fuller, every morning, does a great service. I've known Kelly for many years. She worked at 2NZ radio in Inverell, where my current chief of staff, Greg Kachel, trained Kelly in radio. It's a great local service—after AM, of course, with the update of current affairs from Sabra Lane. From 6.15, I listen to it each morning. We hear the stock market report and up-to-dates from Michael Pritchard, from Muswellbrook—another great reporter—and Kelly Fuller's Breakfast show. Local issues are highlighted there all the time, whether it be a local fundraiser or something in the weather; some grazier alerts, with snow coming, was probably the case this morning or last night, with the snow up near Guyra. The ABC is a vital service in regional Australia. One thing I find very disappointing, though, is that about one-third of the population of Australia lives in the regions but only around 10 per cent of people employed at the ABC are employed in the regions, with 90 per cent in the cities. I think that's a bit unfair—you probably agree with me, Acting Deputy President Leyonhjelm.

Can I say: the privatisation of the ABC is simply a no-no. It will not happen. But you watch the politics being played out on this now. It's like the last election—Senator Fierravanti-Wells would remember it well—with the 'Mediscare' campaign. Senator Hanson-Young is saying the government's lying all the time. I found it unbelievable that, at the last campaign—the 2 July 2016 election—the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bill Shorten, said that we in government would privatise Medicare. How are you ever going to privatise Medicare? It's a business that earns $10 billion a year, with Medicare levies, and spends $21 billion a year. For a simplistic analogy, Senator McCarthy, I put to you: imagine if you went to buy a coffee shop that took $10,000 a week in income but cost $21,000 a week to run. It would lose $11,000 a week. You'd say: 'I'm not buying that business. No-one would buy that business.' But, of course, the politics of scare, of things being said that are simply not true, was a campaign by Mr Shorten at the last election and we can see it coming again now, even though I've read out the statement by the Deputy Prime Minister and Nationals leader, Mr Michael McCormack, the member for Riverina:

The Nationals does not, and has no intention of ever supporting the privatisation of the ABC.

That's the end of the story. In fact, we want to see some more fairness put into the ABC, as far as regional areas go. Let me explain—I'm talking about the ABC in the regions. One of the areas where the ABC is greatly valued is its regional coverage. We really appreciate it. With a strong channel and strong signal, no matter where you drive in the bush, you can get the ABC. I found out a couple of weeks ago. When I was out at the Dig Tree and Innamincka in the Cooper, down to Flinders Ranges, I listened to ABC all the time. It has 48 local regional stations. ABC regional radio is a vital service that is highly valued by those communities.

The government wants to ensure that the ABC's commitment to regional and rural Australia is strong and enduring. That is why we currently have legislation before the parliament in the form of the Australian Broadcasting Corporations Amendment (Rural And Regional Measures) Bill 2017. The bill contains a range of measures, recently championed by our colleague and my good friend Senator Bridget McKenzie, that will amend the ABC's charter to include the words 'regional' and 'geographic' to reflect that its programs are required to contribute to a sense of regional as well as national identity, and that its programs are required to reflect the geographic as well as the cultural diversity of the Australian community. Most people assume this is already in the charter; it's not, but it should be.

It will implement new requirements for the ABC board, including the establishment of a regional advisory council and consultation with the regional advisory council on matters relating to broadcasting services in regional areas. It will require the ABC board to have at least two non-executive directors who have a substantial connection to or substantial experience in a regional community. The government's appointments thus far have ensured that the board currently satisfies this requirement, through Vanessa Guthrie, chair of the Minerals Council, from Western Australia, and Georgie Somerset, a bee producer from Kingaroy. Isn't it good to see, Mr Acting Deputy President, that a bee producer from Kingaroy is on the board!

It will also include a requirement that the ABC's annual report include certain particulars, including a breakdown of regional versus metropolitan employees, the ratio of journalists to support staff, and the hours of local or regional news broadcasts. These measures are not onerous; nor should they be controversial. They are designed simply to ensure that Australians who live in the regions can depend with certainty on the ABC servicing them as well as it does those of us who live in the cities—me not being one of those 'us', of course.

I look forward to Senator McKenzie's legislation, the great work she has done on this, coming to the chamber and being supported right around the chamber. It will be interesting to see whether those opposite and the Greens and so on will support the strengthening of the ABC's broadcast into regional Australia. As I said, I am disappointed that basically 90 per cent of those employed with the ABC are in the urban areas, whereas one-third of the listeners and one-third of the viewers are in regional areas. I think it would be only fair to have the percentage of those employed in those areas increased from 10 per cent to 20 per cent to make the job easier for those out in the regions, where they have to travel long distances doing stories and do excess work on weekends with sports coverage or whatever. But to say that the government is going to privatise the ABC is simply wrong.

I support this motion. As I said, we want strong, well-funded and independent public broadcasting in Australia by the ABC and SBS. There has been a freeze in the budget for three years, the reason being that we are fair dinkum about getting the budget back into the black—not like Mr Swan, who for years said the budget would be in surplus this year, then next year, then the year after. We never saw a surplus. You never see a surplus when Labor is in government, I can assure you. It's always the coalition that has to come into government and clean up the financial mess. Now we're seeing a surplus one year earlier from this budget. There's been a freezing, for three years, of funding to the ABC, but not of funding to SBS; they're actually getting an increase in some areas. We're getting the budget back to surplus. That is something we will deliver, not just promise.

When Labor were in government they froze the Medicare rebate to our doctors, our GPs et cetera. They did it to help get the budget back in surplus. Unfortunately, it didn't help, because the spending just went on and on and on—as it has with the Labor Party in government all of my life. Whether they be state governments or federal governments, the only thing they know in budget figures is red print—more debt, more borrowing. Thankfully, we're heading back in the right direction.

I'm confident the ABC, with that freeze in indexation, will continue their services. They may have to get some efficiencies there. Like all businesses, they can find efficiencies. Funding of $1.2 billion is an enormous amount of money. I think it might even be $1.3 billion for both ABC and SBS. (Time expired)

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In making a contribution to this debate, I do want to acknowledge that I think the ABC plays an important role within Australia's way of life. Particularly in regional and rural communities it provides an opportunity for redressing market failure, and I have to say—at the risk of defragging some of their careers—it has some very good journalists working for it. I'll mention Leigh Sales, whose interviews I enjoy enormously. There's Sabra Lane, of course. In South Australia we've got David Bevan and Ali Clarke. They add a mix of political depth and engagement. I've probably just cruelled their careers with the ABC forever but, nonetheless, I'll call it as I see it.

But I do think the ABC is just too big, too bloated and too biased. There are very few conservative voices on the ABC. It has a reach and scale that would be the envy of any commercial media outlet. In fact, it would be prohibited from existing under the auspices of the commercial legislation as it stands now. To go to the extreme of privatising the ABC would, in effect, create another commercial competitor that would have a scale, volume and reach just as monstrous as that in existence today. The Australian Conservatives have a very sensible and prudent approach that would not only preserve the integrity of the ABC—the ability of governments to reach every citizen and community in Australia in times of emergency and to redress signs of market failure—but save about $500 million or $600 million a year.

Firstly, we would merge the SBS and the ABC. We would restrict them to a couple of national radio stations and a couple of television stations. We would encourage them to provide news and current affairs. We would ensure the independence of their charter and also the fact that they have to provide a diversity of views within the ABC, and that means having conservative commentators there, not just token conservatives that they can beat up. There is something fundamentally wrong when even a mooted comedy program on the ABC can refer to a conservative candidate for a federal seat in the most vile terms. It gets repeated again and again. When complaints are quite legitimately made, the ABC says that they've done nothing wrong. You could go on and on.

The disparaging nature and the attacks upon people who have a different view than the Zeitgeist within the ABC belittle it and bring it down. I remember Tony Jones on Q&A basically referred to my political party as Golden Dawn, which is a neo-Nazi party in Greece. It's appalling. It's abhorrent. We shouldn't have to put up with it. We expect better standards from our national broadcaster. It needs to be brought into line financially and— (Time expired)

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it's incredibly unfortunate that here we are debating and discussing the public broadcaster. Those across from me have every opportunity to question the broadcaster at every Senate estimates where it is made to be accountable in terms of its spending, its coverage and its employee and staff numbers right across the country. Senators get up in here and speak so disparagingly about those who work in the ABC when this parliament, and this Senate in particular, is able to make the ABC accountable through the Senate estimates process, as it does with the SBS. These public broadcasters are accountable not only to the parliament but to the public.

For the debate in this house to refer to complete bias is totally unfair and reprehensible, given the intensive work of journalists and broadcasters across Australia in the ABC and the SBS. How do I know this? I know because I have worked there. I saw firsthand in the 16 years I was with the ABC and the four years I was with the SBS the lengths to which staff in both those organisations go to represent to the best of their ability the stories across each state and territory jurisdiction and internationally.

The problem here is that those opposite in the Turnbull government cannot leave the ABC alone. The problem here is that those opposite harass and intimidate. They raise unfair expectations when they pull the funding rug from under both of these broadcasters. We've seen that, since 2014, ABC funding has been cut by $366 million and 800 staff have gone. The expectations of the Turnbull government, the constant harassment and the criticism are compounded and completely unjust.

A motion was put forward by members of the Liberal Party wanting the complete privatisation of the ABC. What you do speaks more than what you say. On the one hand you are here in this debate saying: 'No, don't look here. There's nothing to see.' Yet, on the other hand, you are withdrawing funds at an enormous rate and having high expectations that are completely unjust. You are squeezing it so much.

In fact, you say you don't want to privatise, but what you're actually doing is dismantling the ABC. What you are actually doing is pulling it apart piece by piece. What you're doing speaks louder than what you're saying in here today. Not only are you removing the funding over successive years—this year $83.7 million in your budget is being removed from the ABC—but on top of that you've launched two damaging public broadcasting inquiries and you still have three bills before parliament that are meddling with the ABC's charter. How can the organisation—how can the public broadcaster—continue its day-to-day job when this government is constantly pulling it apart?

There is one complaint a month by the Minister for Communications, and that's probably being very generous. We only have to look at the fact that you've enabled and carried out the removal of the shortwave service across Australia. You argue on that side of the house that that was the ABC's decision, but we know for a fact that your removal of $366 million now as well as a further $83.7 million leaves no room for decision-making other than to cut programs—programs like shortwave that are so valuable. We see that the remote regions of this country are impacted dramatically where there isn't the mobile coverage that people so expect to receive—'Oh, just go to your mobile phone. You can download an app.' What about those cattle stations, those communities, the ranger programs out there and the fishing industry, who needed so much and still do need the shortwave service where there is no access to mobile coverage, where they can't just download an app that says, 'Here, tune in to this ABC program here or tune in to that ABC program over there'? You are enabling the dismantling of the ABC. You can stand here all you like and say you're not going to privatise, but you're already doing it by dismantling the ABC.

One of the other successful areas of what both public broadcasters do is developing Indigenous content and increasing Indigenous employment. The ABC in 1987 was one of the first media organisations in this country to establish an Indigenous department, which evolved from the Indigenous Programs Unit. It's a centre of excellence for the production of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander television and the development of Indigenous filmmakers in this country. One of the first programs produced was a show called Blackout, a magazine-style program that combined covering current affairs issues, Aboriginal events, comedy segments and musical performances. It was followed by a series of successive programs, including Songlines and the long-running documentary series Message Stick. It's developed the skills of many well-known and talented Indigenous filmmakers.

The ABC also focuses on landmark quality Indigenous drama and documentaries: Redfern Now, Black Comedy, Cleverman and Mystery Road. Put your hand up if you don't know any of those programs. They are important, valuable programs. Again, if we want to value the employment of First Nations people in this country, let's make sure that organisations like the public broadcasters—the ABC and SBS with NITV—continue the tremendous amount of work that goes into employing First Australians across the country.

The role played by SBS in support of NITV, where Indigenous stories are told by Indigenous people—not just for Indigenous audiences but for all audiences in this country—helps bring about a better understanding between black and white Australians. It is those programs that you are dismantling. It is those programs that you are refusing to support. Selling and suffocating all of these things is this government's approach to our ABC. It's an absolute disgrace. It is a disservice. And Australians want to see how all of this can improve. Don't dismantle the ABC. Certainly don't privatise it. What you're doing can tell us only one thing: that it's in the DNA of the coalition government to squash the voice of our public broadcasters, to squeeze it so much, to pressure it, to intimidate and keep saying, 'Look, there's nothing to see; we support the ABC.' Yet your actions speak very, very differently.

Amanda Stoker (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition government values the ABC and its role, but that does not mean the ABC is entitled to be immune to change or to be insulated from the kind of performance measures that are the standard procedure in the private sector and in the administration of other government departments. After all, why should the ABC be immune to the requirement to find efficiencies that other independent agencies face? The Commonwealth DPP is such an agency. It discharges its vital public function with enormous respect for the value of taxpayer funds, including finding efficiency dividends, without complaint.

The ABC service is essential in regional Queensland, and time and time again Queenslanders in the bush tell me how important regional radio programming in particular is. The 48 local regional stations throughout this nation provide an important connection between the people of the bush and what is going on in their nation and in the world. They give vital weather information for those on the land and important safety information in the event of emergencies. I, too, depend on it when I hit the road. ABC TV also provides children's programming that is particularly valued in the regions.

That's why we have legislation before the parliament right now in the form of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Rural and Regional Measures) Bill 2017. That bill would amend the ABC's charter to include the words 'regional' and 'geographic' to reflect the fact that its programs are required to contribute to a sense of regional as well as national identity and that its programs are required to reflect the geographic as well as the cultural diversity of Australia. Most people assume that this is something that's already in the charter and that it would be an obvious requirement. It's not—but it really should be. It also implements requirements for the ABC board to have a regional advisory council and to consult with it on matters relating to broadcasting services in regional areas. It's hoped that a measure like that will help stop a trend within the ABC of diverting resources from regional services and into the cities.

The bill would require the ABC board to have at least two non-executive directors who have a substantial connection to or experience in a regional community. That's currently satisfied by the inclusion of a WA and a Queensland regional person on the board. The bill also includes a requirement that the annual report of the ABC include particulars of regional versus metropolitan employees, the ratios of journalists to support staff and the hours of local regional news broadcasts. All of these measures aren't onerous, and they ought not be controversial. They're simply designed to ensure that Australians who live in the regions can depend with certainty on the ABC to provide a meaningful service to them—a service that is equally meaningful to that which is provided in the cities.

But no government-funded body is entitled to exist without justifying the expenditure it incurs. Every government body must be constantly acting to improve its efficiency and to make its services more relevant, adapting to make sure its service is meaningful to consumers and a fair use of taxpayers' money. I'll give you an example. One in seven Australians watches the ABC, but 100 per cent of taxpayers fund the ABC. With the more than $1.3 billion that goes to funding public broadcasters in this country, it should be doing more to appeal to its constituency. Requiring the ABC to conduct a review into its efficiency is one of the ways that the coalition is determined to deliver maximum value for taxpayers. It's not an attack; it's an opportunity to improve, and we should all be in favour of the continual improvement of service delivery by anybody who receives public money.

Now, it's true that there was a motion carried at the weekend by the Liberal federal council that supported the sale of the national broadcaster—although, importantly, not its regional services. Any such sale has been ruled out by the Prime Minister and Minister Fifield. They've been very clear about that. I wasn't at the federal council; I was attending to my constituents in Queensland. But it's worth listening to the message sent by the motion. One could take from it a deep-seated frustration with the performance of the ABC when it consumes considerable public funds which it then spends on running reruns of foreign gems like That '70s Show whilst it complains that it doesn't have funds to be able to provide short-wave radio services in remote communities.

There is a similar frustration, no doubt experienced by at least a share of the six out of seven Australians who don't watch the ABC, with what appears to be a deep-seated bias in metropolitan reporting. A 2013 report from University of the Sunshine Coast academic Folker Hanusch showed that 75 per cent of ABC journalists are supporters of the political left. Perhaps the takeaway from this motion should be that there is work to be done to ensure that the independence of the ABC is not merely used as a platform for the advancement of private political agendas in its metropolitan content. It's not for nothing that some people say the acronym ABC stands for 'anything but conservative'.

Let's call this matter of debate what it is. It's just Labor thrashing about for yet another 'Mediscare' or perhaps a distraction from its $200 billion in new taxes. Whichever way you dice it, that's what it is—a distraction, a manufactured issue—because this government has been clear that it supports the ABC continuing on efficiently and effectively serving Australians, particularly in their regional areas, well into the future.

Stirling Griff (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a debate that never needed to take place. It's obvious that our public broadcasters should remain just that: public. Anyone who thinks the ABC could deliver a better service or even an equal one if it were in private hands is very much deluding themselves. The same level of high-quality investigative journalism could not be carried out under a private model. Under a private model, editorial decisions are subject to both the deep pockets of advertisers and the ideological whims of executives. Whether you love the ABC or hate it, you cannot deny that it plays an important role in our community. It beggars belief that the Liberal federal council is willing to tamper with it under the misguided belief that we can hive off parts for regional Australia and commercialise the rest.

Centre Alliance also opposes the move to cut $84 million from the ABC's operating budget over the forward years. We will continue to call on the government to ensure that ABC and SBS are adequately funded. The ABC has already lost 800 jobs since this government came to power, and it continues to look for efficiencies in its budget. We don't think that continually squeezing our public broadcasters and threatening to give them the boot, as the Liberal federal executive did over the weekend, is responsible in any way.

Public broadcasters have a unique ability to inform and empower Australians to take part in public debate. They also play a vital role in ensuring a transparent political process and the accountability of state institutions towards the public. We know that, without adequate public resources, that valuable independent voice will be lost.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Senator Griff, the time for this debate has now expired.