tip off

Why history says the ABC review will give it a tick

History suggests even if the ABC’s funding is cut, its journalism will survive. And that’s assuming Malcolm Turnbull wants to cut funding - but does he?

Any objective inquiry into the efficiency of the ABC will find that it is an efficient broadcaster and probably underfunded for what it is required to do under its charter.

How do we know? Because that’s what the last two Coalition-initiated inquiries found.

In 1996, then-prime minister John Howard and then-senator Richard Alston sent businessman Bob Mansfield into the ABC to identify its inefficiencies. At the same time, Howard announced that, contrary to his pre-election commitment, ABC funding would be cut by more than 10% over two years. As it turned out, Howard was wise to slash the broadcaster’s funding before Mansfield finished, because Mansfield supported a strong ABC and suggested that the level of funding required by the ABC was rather higher than what it was after Howard and Alston made their cuts.

Nearly a decade later, the Howard government had another go, sending KPMG into the ABC to study the broadcaster and identify opportunities for efficiencies. But KPMG’s report, wrapped up in early 2006, concluded that the ABC needed tens of millions in additional funding to be able to provide the services required of it. “The ABC is a broadly efficient organisation,” KPMG concluded. It had “managed expenses tightly” and it produced a “high volume of outputs” for the funding it received.

Then-communications minister Helen Coonan — whose chief of staff was Peta Credlin — refused to release the report, and it remains confidential to this day, except for a summary leaked to Crikey.

By 2006, however, the Howard government had gone a substantial way to restoring the funding cut of a decade before. When the much-maligned ABC boss Jonathan Shier, under pressure from the government, reluctantly agreed to take on a revamped international television service under contract to Foreign Affairs, then-foreign minister Alexander Downer secured some additional funding for Radio Australia, a far more effective form of “soft diplomacy” than a TV service will ever be. Shier was also able to secure nearly $20 million in additional funding a year for regional programming, and Coonan obtained additional programming funding in her first budget as communications minister.

In announcing an efficiency review of the ABC and SBS yesterday, Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull complained:

There is limited transparency to the Australian public, the Government and the Parliament of the breakdown of costs of delivering the ABC and SBS Charter responsibilities and whether these could be more efficiently delivered by the national broadcasters.”

Well, gee, Malcolm — maybe you could help fix that by releasing the KPMG audit kept hidden by the Howard government?

The inclusion of SBS in the review, which will be done by the Communications Department and led by former Seven chief financial officer Peter Lewis, is a fig leaf — Turnbull himself admits that SBS, which has struggled to get any significant increased funding in recent years, is lean — it has had no choice. The real question for SBS is one that is ruled out in the review — whether it should continue to exist in its current form. SBS Radio still plays a very important role in helping immigrants settle in Australia and is great value for money — but SBS TV’s role is far less clear now.

The way that broadcaster has handled budget cuts over the last 18 years is instructive about its level of efficiency, its priorities and, importantly, the political problems that face a Coalition …”

As for the ABC, the way that broadcaster has handled budget cuts over the last 18 years is instructive about its level of efficiency, its priorities and, importantly, the political problems that face a Coalition government looking to slash funding.

Its initial response to the 1996 cuts, put together by new chairman Donald McDonald and then-MD Brian Johns, was the “One ABC” strategy of merging functions regardless of platform. Shier then unwound this. Instead, the key long-term ABC survival tactic was to starve TV drama of funding, even to the extent of relying on The Bill and repeats in prime time, something that mortified Shier’s successor, Russell Balding. The ABC’s News and Current Affairs division, however, was kept going, even if foreign correspondents were recalled or sacked. At one stage in the early 2000s, NewsCaff (News and Current Affairs) exceeded its budget two years running and was in effect given a loan by the rest of the broadcaster.

Why was NewsCaff privileged? The ABC Charter is for it to provide “innovative and comprehensive broadcasting services of a high standard” that “inform and entertain Australians”. But the ABC Act also requires the broadcaster to specifically provide an independent news service and requires the ABC board to “to ensure that the gathering and presentation by the Corporation of news and information is accurate and impartial according to the recognized standards of objective journalism”. That is, there is a statutory obligation on the ABC to provide high-quality news, while the rest of its programming obligations are fairly general.

Moreover, the years of funding cuts coincided with the emergence of the internet, and to its considerable credit the ABC, which until the Rudd years never received any funding for online services, developed one of Australia’s most important online services off the smell of an oily rag — a testament to the vision of Brian Johns and his successors, who made sure online was funded even when the ABC was struggling.

The problem with prioritising NewsCaff over drama was that it meant that the ABC was spending less on producing local drama at its facilities across the country (it was also under pressure to outsource more drama as well) — and every time it cut production in a city outside Sydney or Melbourne, it faced the wrath of unions and local politicians, who accused the ABC of being too focused on the big cities. The same thing happened if the ABC ever rationalised any part of its massive regional presence — Nationals MPs would howl about the ABC abandoning the bush. So ABC management was permanently required to manage the tension between the Howard government demanding ever greater efficiencies and politicians (including many members of the Howard government) and the community demanding it retain less efficient regional and state capital functions.

So, will the “Lewis review” follow the pattern of previous reviews and find the ABC is doing a pretty good job? The key lies in the fact it is a departmental review — there’ll be no independent auditing firm involved this time, nor a high-profile business personality. That means that Turnbull will have tight control of the review and its outcomes.

I’ll venture two theories on Turnbull’s role in all this. One: that he’s merely playing good cop to Abbott’s bad cop in this Coalition war on the ABC, but ultimately they want the same thing, a weaker broadcaster. The other, more Machiavellian one, is that Turnbull indeed wants to protect the ABC and knows perfectly well an objective review will find it is broadly efficient or needs more money. The review will become his weapon against Abbott and his colleagues who want to gut the ABC. “We did a full-blown review,” he can tell cabinet, “and it said there were no grounds for cutting the ABC’s funding.”

And even if the anti-ABC crowd in the government get their way, history suggests they’ll discover that slashing its budget will do little to curb its journalism.

17
  • 1
    grubbidok
    Posted Friday, 31 January 2014 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

    While many have criticised the fact that Turnbull’s office essentially dictates the review and suggesting this indicates it will ‘tow the party line’, I guess it also provides the opportunity for Turnbull to wreak revenge by giving the ultimate FU to Abbott.

    Never underestimate the vindictiveness of a Minister or ex-leader scorned. Popcorn!

  • 2
    Electric Lardyland
    Posted Friday, 31 January 2014 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

    I’d be interested to know how much the Howard government spent, on a report that they immediately shelved, because the result didn’t match their ideological narrative. Ah yes, those golden years of Coalition fiscal responsibility, where they spent hundreds of millions of public money, subsidising the commercial media, by being the nation’s largest advertiser.

  • 3
    oldsalt
    Posted Friday, 31 January 2014 at 5:15 pm | Permalink

    Abbott owes Murdoch big time. I would be prepared to wager that this totally un-necessary exercise is merely step 1 in changes that will ultimately benefit the News Corp stable.

  • 4
    Liamj
    Posted Friday, 31 January 2014 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

    Abbott doesn’t give a damn about the facts, the review is just kicking up dust while he does his masters bidding and bleeds the ABC. Turnbull might be a little bitter but he’s mostly vain and ambitious and will follow any and all orders.

  • 5
    David Hand
    Posted Friday, 31 January 2014 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

    In spite of the Machiavellian view expressed around here that Abbott’s complaints about ABC bias is some sort of tactic to slash its funding, I think the two issues are completely unrelated.

    I think the ABC is biased to the left but I think if its funding was cut it would still be biased to the left.

  • 6
    Pedantic, Balwyn
    Posted Friday, 31 January 2014 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

    Abbott lied about not cutting funding to the ABC. Now he is employing demonising tactics to persuade the uneducated that the ABC demonstrates bias;of an order that would not cause concern to any balanced individual. BTW anyone read the Tele, now that’s bias!
    Now he is setting up reviews to check on efficiency etc with blatant intention of reducing funding even further.
    Our PM cannot stand criticism, especially when giving the ABC a whack also sucks up to his backer the very dodgy digger!

  • 7
    AR
    Posted Friday, 31 January 2014 at 9:14 pm | Permalink

    The shoutjocks criticised Krudd on achieving office for “hitting the ground reviewing..” - hardly surprising given Augean stables it found reeking to the stars - but i can’t recall many Royal Commissions at the time. That would have been seen as vindictive, not least by Lord Bunter the Downer, Phone Card Wharf Dog Reith or… so many who should have supped porridge.
    Instead, reaching across the aisle BO style, many recalcitrants were given sinecures & qango seats (Vatican Ambassador anyone, why honour Il Duce’s creation?)And how did that work out? Guess.
    Courage of convictions would be nice, even from TT as one could “think” that he’d agonised over them, rather than being served to him on a gilt platter. (see how I avoided “guilt’, that motivating factor of all failed priests?

  • 8
    David Hand
    Posted Saturday, 1 February 2014 at 8:41 pm | Permalink

    Hey pedantic,
    Sorry to be pedantic but can you point me to the Abbott announcement that the ABC’s funding is being cut? Calling anyone a l iar is a big statement. Calling our prime minister a liar needs an announcement or something to back it up.

  • 9
    David Hand
    Posted Saturday, 1 February 2014 at 8:41 pm | Permalink

    Hey pedantic,
    Sorry to be pedantic but can you point me to the Abbott announcement that the ABC’s funding is being cut? Calling anyone a l iar is a big statement. Calling our prime minister a l iar needs an announcement or something to back it up.

  • 10
    zut alors
    Posted Sunday, 2 February 2014 at 9:25 am | Permalink

    Has anybody noticed that on this morning’s ‘Insiders’ with Barrie Cassidy the three panellists are all News Corp employees. The Advertiser, The Courier-Mail & The Australian are represented.

    Murdoch controls 70% of the newspaper business - but on ‘Insiders’ he’s scored 100% of the commentary.

  • 11
    klewso
    Posted Sunday, 2 February 2014 at 9:39 am | Permalink

    Abbott’s Personal History/Track Form”?
    That meeting with Pell?
    His disdain for the “boring rigmarole of uninteresting government”, as in his idea of “reading” pertinent reports :- “No, I didn’t. But someone read it and told me what it said/meant.” Gets out of the interview - “Get me that report. I’ll take it to bed; for tomorrow’s door stop.” - “Yes I did. I didn’t understand the question.”?
    The cast iron guarantee re the Medibank safety net?
    That “unity ticket with Labor” over education?
    The deliberate implication in his address to that desperate SPC Ardmona community rally, “May 9 2013(?)” - “This (Labor) is a government in chaos. Which is completely disregarding you at a time when they should be standing with you and doing whatever they can to support you!”?
    Not to mention his “confession” to “Brother Kerry” on the 7:30 Report (“May 17/18 2010”?) - that he can’t be trusted in everything he says “in the heat of political battle(?)” - when he’s looking for any edge - but we’re supposed to be able to trust what he says when he said we can trust what he writes? When signing the death certificate for WorkChoices in that very public stunt, he wrote it as “Work Choices”?

    True, when it comes to “Artisan in Sophistry” he isn’t in “Honest” John Howard’s class - but who is?
    So can you blame so many of us ignorant lefties/punters, for seeing him as a common, garden variety “liar”?

  • 12
    David Hand
    Posted Sunday, 2 February 2014 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    I’m confident Insiders can and will welcome journalists from outside the Murdoch organisation, unless you think Rupert has now got editorial control on the ABC as well. It’s more likely that all the ABC contributors are not back off their holidays yet.

    I did notice though that in their extended coverage of the boat people matter, they defended the ABC’s rumour spreading about navy torture and hardly mentioned that there have been no illegal boat entries for a month.

    And the last spray, putting Santamaria’s anti ABC rant from 30 years ago, banging on about s*domy, alongside Abbott’s criticism of the ABC last week, was just spiteful. Just the sort of thing to excite the Abbott hating luvvies.

    It’s impressive really. it’s the sort of subtle positioning of Abbott that damages him and allows the ABC to say “Who? Us?? Biased?? Wash your mouth out!!”

  • 13
    Electric Lardyland
    Posted Sunday, 2 February 2014 at 11:20 am | Permalink

    Yes, Zut, possibly one reason why the ABC has suffered a slight drop in the ‘who do you trust’ poll: the fact that many of the commentators are imports from the least trusted section of the media.
    Of course, that won’t stop that section of the media, trying to portray the ABC as some sort of fifth column collective, made up of rabid anarchists and treacherous Stalinists.

  • 14
    David Hand
    Posted Sunday, 2 February 2014 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

    Klewso,
    I’ll take that as a “no”

  • 15
    CML
    Posted Sunday, 2 February 2014 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

    @Zut - Yes I did notice the overdone Ltd News panel, and felt dismayed that maybe The Insiders was going the same way as The Drum. There must still be some Torys lurking at the producer level in the ABC at least.
    I am really angry with The Drum, because not only do they have majority ‘right’ wing commentators on that program most nights, but something should be done about Julia Baird holding up the Australian newspaper and quoting from it ad nauseum. I have never seen her use any other publication, which she should do, if they are to claim ‘balance’. At present, what Baird is doing looks a lot like advertising ONE newspaper to me, and advertising is strictly prohibited by the ABC charter. But since this behaviour advantages the LNP government, I suppose that’s okay?
    I was gob-smacked when I heard Cassidy doing the same thing on The Insiders this morning - quoting (only) from that Ltd News Liberal songsheet AKA The Australian.
    It is okay to quote from a newspaper (without holding up the masthead!), but all newspapers should be used, IMHO. I am at a loss to understand this ‘left-wing’ bias in the ABC that everyone is on about just now.

  • 16
    klewso
    Posted Monday, 3 February 2014 at 1:01 am | Permalink

    CML - The ABC “Paying Tribute to Seizer”?

  • 17
    Liamj
    Posted Monday, 3 February 2014 at 9:34 am | Permalink

    CML - good point re ABCs The Drum promoting The Australian, another reason to never watch it, feeble umpiring of Hildebrand/Reith/etc lies being the main one.
    Minor correction tho: its hardly ‘everyone’ that is on about leftwing bias in the ABC, really its just the far-right parrots of LNP & News Corp.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...