Response of FABC (Vic) to Discussion Paper on Future of ABC TV Production in Victoria

Response of Friends of the ABC (Vic) Inc. (FABC)
to 'ABC Production: Discussion Paper on the Future of ABC Television Productionâ produced by the Victorian Parliamentary Economic Development Committee Inquiry into the Effects of Government-Funded National Broadcasting on Victoria

Friends of the ABCâs response to the Inquiryâs proposal is in the following context:

i) The ABC exists to fulfil its Charter and provide the public of Australia with a quality broadcasting service. Sound financial management of the ABC is important, but it must always operate in the service of the ABCâs charter obligations.

ii) The purpose of FABC is to support the maintenance and advancement of the ABC:

• to fulfil to a high standard its role as an independent and comprehensive national public broadcaster;
• to be adequately funded by Government to fulfil its role;
• to remain independent of government influence, commercial sponsorship and advertising; and
• to promote Australian culture in all its diversity.

Response to the Inquiry Discussion Paper

1. While recognising this is not a final report, and has been timed to address a matter currently being considered by the ABC, FABC is nevertheless disappointed at the extremely narrow focus of the Committeeâs Discussion Paper at this late stage of the Inquiry. The Discussion Paper does not deal with the impact - economic, social and cultural - of government-funded national broadcasting on Victoria. It seeks to deal with only one aspect of the ABCâs operation, the physical location of television production (non news and current affairs), and appears to be narrowly focused in that aspect, considering it mainly in terms of the assumed comparative financial advantage of moving such production from Sydney to Melbourne.

2. The Committee urges the ABC to fully investigate the proposals outlined in the Discussion Paper. In the Paper, the Committee encourages the Victorian Government to offer the ABC incentives to relocate a major part of its television production base to Melbourne (p.20). A Government response to the Committeeâs suggestion, specifying the detail of assistance it would provide, if any, should be provided to enable the ABC to effectively consider the feasibility and financial advantages of the Committeeâs proposal.

3. The Discussion Paper deals largely, though not totally, with claimed financial benefits (reduced operation and capital costs) of locating television production facilities in Melbourne instead of Sydney. FABC found no consideration of other important factors which impact on production quality, such as experienced and creative staff, and no consideration of its benefit to the overall operation of the ABC and to Victorian audiences.

4. FABC does not have adequate information or resources to assess the value of the Committeeâs proposal in terms of its claimed financial advantage to the ABC, or to know how effectively the Committee has costed its comparisons and the relevance or reliability of material it has depended on to reach its proposal.
   We note the Committeeâs acknowledgement that it does not have the necessary information for more thorough investigation and quantification of the economic benefits accruing from the option it has put forward in its Discussion Paper.
   FABC is concerned about the relevance of information relied upon by the Committee. Information related to the film production industry may not be transferable to television production.
   Further, if it is an "industry view" that ABC and commercial television productions in Melbourne are generally considered to be very cost efficient in comparison with Sydney productions (p.14, para. 5), what is the reason the bulk of all television and film production industry is located in Sydney?

5. The Federal Minister for Communications, Senator Alston, is exerting pressure on the ABC to outsource all non-news and current affairs television production, to become merely a broadcaster of material produced by others. FABC is concerned that the Discussion Paperâs proposal to separate non-news and current affairs television production (p.12) leads the ABC along Senator Alstonâs path, that separating non-news and current affairs television production off from other parts of the ABC would enable this facility to be more readily privatised, disbanded, or perhaps sold off to one of its Dockland media neighbours, with which the Committee appears keen for it to become intertwined (p.18).
   FABC is convinced the ABC must maintain a high level of in-house production. Public support for the ABC as a producer is strong. Australians view their national public broadcaster as a Îmakerâ of programs, not merely a transmitter. An independent public broadcaster is able to produce innovative programs, programs of cultural value and intellectual integrity, and programs which reflect Australian life - programs of a kind and quality not often achieved by commercial producers.

6. Although it is not stated directly, the Discussion Paper implies that production outside the ABC is more cost-efficient. (point 2, p. 11) This is not substantiated in the report. FABC has no evidence of any other authoritative study or inquiry having found this to be the case. Services provided by the ABC as a whole represent genuine value for money. It manages to provide Australians with quality television, four specialist radio networks, six metropolitan radio networks, countless regional services, Radio Australia and now a hugely successful on-line network for a budget of around half of that available to the Nine Network for television alone.

7. The Discussion Paper states that problems of cost efficiency and probity in purchasing programs and co-production may be overcome if the Program Production department/unit was to be more clearly separated from the ABC programming and broadcasting unit. (p.12)
   In the Paper, FABC could find no evidence to demonstrate the nature or extent of such problems. We could find no evidence to substantiate the Committeeâs assumption that separation of the Program Production department/unit from the ABC programming and broadcasting unit may overcome these perceived problems, or any consideration of the merits or otherwise of dealing with the perceived problems in this way.

8. The Paper refers to the concentration of production facilities, skills, etc.s, and the synergies which would flow from the ABC being located on the same site at Docklands with the Seven Network and Entertainment City.
   FABC could find no explanation of how these synergies will operate. We believe the Committee must spell out more clearly its concept of how this would work in action. The independence of the ABC - from government and from private interests - is the core of the ABCâs integrity. FABC is concerned that the independence of the ABC not be compromised in any way.

FABC is vitally concerned with the level and quality of ABC service received by Victorians and other Australians. Because Australiaâs great cultural, educational and entertainment institution is a national organisation, we believe the interests of Victorian ABC audiences will be best furthered by ensuring the healthy operation of the ABC as a whole.
It appears that financial viability of the Docklands development is a key interest for the Victorian Parliamentary Economic Development Committee. Although the Committeeâs proposal would assist the Docklands development, FABC is yet to see evidence that it would benefit the ABC.
FABC welcomes any proposals which enhance the operation of the ABC. We urge the Committee, in the short time it has left, 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.

1.4.99

GS:Reviews/Inquiries:Vic Inquiry 98