Vic Inquiry into the ABC — (predictably damning)
Friends of the ABC (Vic) Inc. Response to the Victorian Parliamentary Economic Development Committee Inquiry Report into the Effects of Government-Funded National Broadcasting on Victoria
The final report of the Victorian Parliamentary Economic Development Committee inquiring into the Effects of Government-funded National Broadcasting on Victoria was tabled in the State Parliament on Tuesday 25 May 1999.
It is no surprise to those who followed the activities of the Victorian Parliamentary Economic Development Committee's eleven-month inquiry into the ABC and SBS that its long awaited report attacks the ABC. The Australian newspaper editorial 27.5.99 described the report as "predictable but irrational".
From the outset, the Inquiry - which considered the role and adequacy of the ABC, and the effect of its distribution of resources on Victoria's economy and community - appeared more concerned with undermining the ABC than with enhancing its operations in Victoria.
The Inquiry was established in May 1998 by Victorian Liberal Premier, Jeff Kennett. Premier Kennett has described the ABC as "... a great leech on society", is regularly unavailable for the public scrutiny of being interviewed by the experienced journalists of the ABC's The 7.30 Report, and has made clear his interest in having the ABC closed down. Criticisms of the ABC by the Committee's chairman, Liberal MP, Chris Strong, commenced even before evidence had been collected and public hearings held. Public hearings were conducted in selected areas, often without adequate notice or publicity.
After ten months the Committee produced only a narrow discussion paper focused almost entirely on one aspect of ABC operations. It proposed that non-news and current affairs television production be physically relocated to Melbourne, with the ABC to explore a joint venture with private US media giant Viacom at the Entertainment City complex in Melbourne Docklands (one of Premier Kennett's prized development projects which is experiencing difficulty getting off the ground). The discussion paper contained unsupported claims of financial benefit for the ABC which would result from this relocation, information of questionable relevance, and did not consider important factors which impact on production quality and the ABC's independence.
The final report of the Inquiry appears to have disregarded information submitted by Friends of the ABC and others on the impact of the recent major twelve percent cut to the ABC's budget, on top of a steady decline in funds since 1987/88, and ignored the suggestion of Sir Rupert Hamer (who addressed the Inquiry Committee on behalf of FABC) that the Inquiry consider if the overall level of ABC funding is adequate to enable it to meet Victoria's needs. It appears the Inquiry also ignored FABC's request that it consider the impact on information, trade and good relations resulting from the decimation of the ABC's international broadcaster, Radio Australia (RA). In response to FABC's submission that the large cut to RA resulted in a disproportionate loss of Victorian jobs because RA functioned largely from Victoria, Inquiry chairman Mr Strong said at an Inquiry hearing on 16.10.98: "If RA is reconstituted its employees will probably be employed in Sydney anyway!"
The Inquiry's final report is extremely critical of the ABC, particularly regarding Sydney's domination in programming, staffing and resources. It tells us what we already know - that ABC resources and decision making are heavily centralised in Sydney - and contrasts unfavourably the relative staff numbers between NSW (53%) and Victoria (16%).
The ABC argues it is committed to decentralisation. In recent times, the ABC's financial operations have been located from Sydney to Adelaide, and the broadcaster has a substantial presence in Melbourne. Melbourne is a major centre of television production. More than half the ABC's arts, comedy and drama programs are made in Melbourne (though most of this is outsourced, that is, not made by the ABC alone). One third of Radio National comes from Melbourne, the Natural History Unit (which produces wildlife documentaries), Radio Australia and the head of Local and Regional Services are located in Melbourne. The head of ABC Multimedia has moved to Melbourne from Sydney.
Murray Green, ABC Victorian manager says: "Because the ABC has its head office in Sydney, there are a number of head office functions - administrative, corporate and editorial - that are contained in Sydney. That means there are more staff in Sydney". Mr Green also says: "Losing 1,000 staff over the past few years does not make meeting decentralisation expectations any easier". Staff numbers have decreased significantly as the result of funding cuts. Journalist and ABC whistleblower John Millard says ABC management is still not prepared to admit funding cutbacks have forced centralisation for cost-efficiency.
Decentralisation is important. It does not much matter where 'Playschool' or 'The Science Show' are made. But it does matter for 'The 7.30 Report'. The public needs national news and current affairs. But it also wants news and current affairs produced in the particular state in which it is shown, and documentaries and entertainment which reflect the full range of life across Australia.
The ABC is not without blame on the matter of centralisation. However, it is already the most decentralised of all the Australian media. The ABC has 47 regional locations outside the capital cities around Australia, and rightly points out that no other Australian media outlet can match the ABC's national and regional coverage. So it is fair to ask: why is it the ABC which is subject to the scrutiny and severe criticism of the Victorian Government? Why not other media? Headquarters of the major publishers of the nation's newspapers and magazines are in Sydney. Each of the television networks' largest concentrations of staff are based there. Why not an inquiry into the Seven, Nine and Ten networks which have significantly less presence in Victoria than the ABC?
Ross Warneke in The Age Green Guide (3.6.99) suggests a reason: "But only the ABC, the network whose news and current affairs programs have most frequently and most rigorously put Mr Kennett and his government under the microscope, was subjected to an official inquiry".
Inadequate InformationIn its report, the Inquiry Committee alleges the ABC was reluctant to provide all information sought by the Committee, and failed to provide it with essential information on finances and staffing. The Committee doubted that ABC staff had been allowed to express their views publicly to the Committee, but provided no evidence to support this conclusion.
The ABC says it provided hundreds of hours of evidence, prepared three major submissions, and senior executives were questioned at length by the Inquiry.
Without knowing the detail of information the Inquiry claims it was unable to obtain, FABC cannot assess the legitimacy of these claims. What we do know is that much public money, ABC time and resources has been wasted on continuous attacks on the ABC through never-ending inquiries of hostile governments seeking to undermine independent media in Australia.
The ABC is already subject to extensive accountability mechanisms . It is monitored by the ABC Board (appointed by government), the Auditor General and the Senate Estimates Committee of the Federal Parliament.
The report appeals to simplistic state-chauvinism by recommending a shift in focus away from NSW to other states, primarily Victoria. It does not provide solutions as to how decentralisation can be achieved, and provides no evidence on whether or not decentralisation can be increased in a cost-effective manner.
In times past, when the ABC operated in a more decentralised manner, it was criticised for the cost of such a method of operation. The Australian's editorial reminds us that "not so many years ago the ABC was strongly represented in all State capitals, sparking criticism of mass duplication and inefficiency".
So has the report addressed the issue of financial resources required to decentralise? Not in the manner you might expect useful for an organisation which has suffered a recent, massive twelve percent funding cut:
Block FundsThe report has called on the Federal Government to block funds for the ABC's upgrade of facilities through its planned relocation of television facilities within Sydney, until the ABC outlines plans to decentralise.
Performance AuditThe Inquiry concluded the ABC is grossly inefficient, and has called for a "performance audit" of all aspects of ABC operations by the Commonwealth Auditor General.
Justification for its claim of inefficiency is based largely on the report of Australian Continuous Improvement Group (ACIG), a little known consultant with no expertise in the media industry. ACIG was engaged by the Inquiry to compare and analyse data, such as employee numbers and financial information. Its analysis did not consider the qualitative aspects of the ABC, or technical aspects of media. In effect, it compared apples with oranges.
The ABC says that in calculating the ratio of head office managers to staff, ACIG figures of senior managers include senior editorial staff who are program makers, and that the ABC was measured against US commercial networks and not comparable public broadcasters such as Britain's BBC and Canada's CBC.
On Radio National's Media Report, ACIG's Managing Director, Bob Hood explained that in comparing the ABC with other organisations - non media, US media and Australian commercial radio stations - ACIG concluded the ABC had a higher cost operation, but acknowledged there may be quite legitimate reasons for this. In response to the interviewer's suggestion that the content of commercial and public broadcasting is quite different, so the production cost structure must be different, Mr Hood said, "Well, I cannot make that sort of statement because I am not qualified to comment upon the content of particular programs."
Other Disturbing Recommendations & Findings
Government InterferenceIn disregard of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act which requires the ABC's independence from government in management and programming matters, and presumably in ignorance that interference in programming may establish a practice for other governments (which may have views considerably different to their own), the Inquiry Committee makes recommendations about ABC programming. In at least one case it has not only specified the nature of the music program it proposes, but the time and frequency with which the Committee thinks it should be screened. And needless to say, the Committee has given no consideration to the cost of implementing its program selections.
Regardless of their political views, and whether or not they may share the government's program preference on a particular occasion, the vast majority of Australians recognise that there are serious dangers in allowing a practice of government-interference in programming. Unfortunately, that understanding is lacking in the Inquiry Report.
One of the most disturbing findings of the Inquiry is the proposition that the ABC should reduce its role. The Inquiry recommends the ABC's role be narrowed, that the Charter which governs the ABC be changed to re-prioritise ABC activities to complement commercial broadcasters.
This would be a major change to the Charter requirement that the ABC be a comprehensive broadcaster, and against the wishes of most Australians. The public values the ABC because it is independent, and because it is a comprehensive broadcaster, catering for a great diversity of Australian interests. If such a change was implemented, the ABC as we know it, would not be recognisable.
Inquiry Attempts to Discredit FABCIn a process which sought to undermine the ABC, the Inquiry Committee has also attempted to discredit Friends of the ABC, to dismiss its input to the Inquiry and to lessen the impact of FABC criticism of its findings.
The Inquiry report claims FABC "undertake their role as one of generally supporting ABC management", and infers that FABC operates in cahoots with ABC management. Responding to FABC criticism of the Inquiry recommendations, in a letter to The Age (3.6.99), Chris Strong, Liberal Chairman of the Victorian Inquiry, asserted that FABC "support the line of ABC Sydney management", and strongly implied that FABC had not read his report.
Mr Strong's comments are untrue and without foundation. They are libelous, and comment in the Committee's report would have been actionable, if such reports were not protected by parliamentary privilege.
The only support offered by the Inquiry report for its outrageous claim is two letters the Committee received from the ABC and FABC. The report states these letters "appeared to be an exact duplicate in content, clearly indicating a unified and co-operative approach between ABC management and the Friends of the ABC". Some concerns raised in these letters are similar. It is not surprising that the ABC and FABC - two separate organisations, but both with a keen interest in the health of the ABC - wrote to respond to events to do with the operation of the Inquiry, which were both specific and current. In any case, although it is not what occurred on this occasion, it would have been entirely appropriate for FABC to support or take up positions put forward by the ABC management, if FABC determined these to be in the public interest.
Friends of the ABC is an independent organisation, concerned to ensure the ABC operates effectively as Australia's national public broadcaster. It is a critical supporter of the ABC. FABC defends the ABC against governments which seek to dismantle it. It criticises ABC management on occasions it does not believe the ABC to be fulfilling its Charter obligations or operating in the best interests of independent and comprehensive national public broadcasting. The ABC is acutely aware of FABC's role as a 'critical' supporter of the ABC. As a guest speaker at FABC's last national conference, ABC Chairman Donald McDonald acknowledged the bitter-sweet relationship which results from the necessarily independent relationship of FABC from the ABC.
Mr Strong and the Victorian Parliamentary Economic Development Committee fail to distinguish between the clearly different roles of supporting ABC management, which FABC does not do, and the holding of similar views to ABC management on particular matters, or giving support for its actions on occasions FABC determines these to be in the best interests of independent and comprehensive national public broadcasting.
The Committee would have anticipated that its report - with proposals to weaken the ABC - would attract criticism from FABC, the major body which speaks out for the public's interest to maintain independent and comprehensive national public broadcasting. Some members of parliament may perceive it is in their interest to lessen the impact of criticism of their recommendations and to diminish the influence of their critics by seeking to discredit them. However, the community is entitled to expect higher ethical and professional standards from politicians who are, after all, funded from the public purse.
What Next?In response to the Victorian Inquiry findings, Premier Kennett said "If it (the ABC) can't be a national broadcaster, then I think you have got to question the level of funding that is currently being supplied to it." (The Australian 27.5.99)
Some people are cynical enough to think the intent of this inquiry was to enhance the Federal Government's campaign to discredit and undermine the ABC. The Victorian Government may have intended to accomplish what the Federal Government failed to achieve when it established the Mansfield Review which received a record number of 10,615 public submissions, overwhelmingly in favour of the ABC.
In this instance, the Victorian Government has no jurisdiction. The real impact of this politically motivated and ill-informed report will be in the hands of its Federal Government colleagues, FABC waits to see if the Federal Government will use the report to justify further efforts to dismantle the ABC and interfere in its independence, or if it will find it too compromising to associate itself with such an unimpressive report - an attack on the ABC inter-mixed with state nationalism.
ConclusionAs decreasing federal government funds shrink the ABC cake, many groups will be competing to maintain their areas of interest, be it arts, sport, current affairs or drama; be it Victoria, WA or South Australia.
Australia's great cultural, educational and entertainment institution is a national organisation. The interests of all ABC audiences, the level and quality of ABC service received by Australians in all states will be best furthered by ensuring the healthy operation of the ABC as a whole. Any State Government truly interested in representing the interests of its state, must call on federal governments to ensure the ABC is properly funded to meet the needs of all Australians, their state included.
FABC welcomes proposals which enhance and build the operation of the ABC. The Victorian Inquiry has not done this. Despite the real budget pressures faced by the ABC in recent years, the Inquiry failed to consider the most important matter influencing the impact of national public broadcasting on the Victorian economy and community: lack of adequate funds from the Federal Government. Moving ABC operations from Sydney to Melbourne will not decrease the high level of repeats now screened on ABC television, restore the significant loss of Australian productions, or rebuild decimated Radio Australia.
The ABC must be 'inquiried-out' by now, having been the subject of examination by numerous inquiries and private consultants in its recent history. It would appear more appropriate that there be a "performance audit" of the Parliamentary Committee itself: into the conduct of the Inquiry, the cost to Victorians of the operation of this eleven month inquiry into a federally-funded body over which it has no jurisdiction, and the loss to all Australians as valuable ABC resources have been diverted to meet the Inquiry's never-ending requests for information.
Governments of all political persuasions must recognise and embrace their responsibility to maintain a national public broadcaster which is independent and comprehensive, and has adequate funds to reflect Australian culture in all its diversity.
Return to FABC News / Return to Top
© Friends of the ABC 2002 / Policy information / Webmaster