Media Releases and Letters

The Friends of the ABC around Australia have expressed astonishment following the appointment of Dr Keith Windschuttle to the Board of the ABC and have renewed their calls for the Government to reform the process by which appointments are made.

Friends Spokesperson Ms Margaret O’Connor today said ‘Like Janet Albrechtsen before him, Dr Windschuttle is an ideological zealot who is on record as expressing the same old biased, tired and clichéd rhetoric about the ABC being a haven for Marxists and radicals.’

‘Given the fact that the Board now has three Directors who have been associated with the conservative magazine Quadrant, what on earth is the Australian public supposed to make of this? How are we supposed to believe that the Government has any commitment to a fair and balanced Board?’ Ms O’Connor said. ‘For the Minister to argue that the Board represents an appropriate balance is quite astonishing in the circumstances.’

‘In selecting commentators to appear on its programs, the ABC is, quite properly, required to provide a balance of opinion. But in selecting members of the ABC Board the government appoints Ms Albrechtsen, Dr Windschuttle and other “usual suspects” time after time,’ Ms O’Connor said. ‘When you get so many Directors who have been such open critics of the ABC and such a preponderance of the same political views, we say the ABC Board is screaming out for a bit of balance. Surely the Minister would have to concede that any ABC producer who chose the government appointed members of the ABC board as the panel for a current affairs discussion would be quickly found guilty of bias.’

‘Not only does the government appoint the usual suspects, but the process itself is also suspect. It happens secretly, and without any apparent relationship to the qualifications required to run a half billion dollar a year organisation. It is long past time that the Government followed the example of the Conservative government in the UK on this issue. Australia needs an open, transparent and non-partisan method of finding qualified people to run our national broadcaster. Appointments such as that of Dr Windschuttle only make this blindingly obvious.’

The importance placed on ‘good journalism’ by the new ABC managing director made encouraging reading (‘New ABC boss plans to oversee broadcaster’s digital transition’, May 23, p2).

It was also pleasing that you reported what Mark Scott meant—journalism which would ‘sometimes involve broadcasting courageous stories that do upset people and powerful interests’.

However, some dots must be joined between editorial independence and the manner of funding.

Mr Scott was non-committal about revenue from advertising, but Helen Coonan’s reported exhortation to keep an open mind on the topic should be alarming, especially as this minister is skilled at not sounding alarms, but breaking and entering anyway.

(Look at the difference between her words and her actions over the abolition of the staff-elected directorship on the ABC board).

Fearless and credible journalism depends on freedom from commercial pressure—which powerful interests are expert at wielding.

No amount of open-mindedness can change that.

Jill Greenwell, president, Friends of the ABC (ACT & Region)

Following the Budget release, Friends of the ABC Spokesperson, Ms Margaret O’Connor, described the ABC’s funding situation as ‘grim’ and ‘dire’ and forecast that the ABC is facing significant programming cuts.

‘This prediction echoes statements made by the ABC’s Board Directors in the last Annual Report’, Ms O’Connor said. ‘In their own words, “a critical point has been reached” and unless “adequate funding is secured for the coming triennium, the Board will be faced with a range of fundamental questions about the extent and quality of ABC programming and services.”

’The ABC has received $88.2 million over three years for drama and documentary-making, regional and local programming and capital renewal. While this money is welcome, it is not enough to sustain programming needs, being substantially less than the ABC’s modest budget submission log of claims. Additionally, such funding allocation risks the subversion of the Broadcaster’s independence. Why not the simpler solution of increasing the ABC's overall budget to acceptable levels?’ Ms O'Connor said.

‘This funding is also less than that which the KPMG Report, commissioned to investigate the ABC’s funding, was reported to advise that the Broadcaster needs (an extra $125 million rolled per annum into its base funding). What does the Government have to hide by withholding this report from the public? The Friends of the ABC urge its release now that the Budget has been announced. How else can the Australian public judge whether this funding is enough?

‘When the Government prides itself on huge Budget surpluses, what motivation does it have in starving the ABC? Given the fact that Australia’s coffers are awash with funds, it is disgraceful that the ABC has been given the fiscal equivalent of a sandwich and a milk shake. Its funding situation is a national tragedy which the Friends predict will become an election issue under the banner “How badly do we want a public broadcaster?”’

Last year, before the Government took control of the Senate, The Canberra Times published an article under the headline ‘Will it be open season on the ABC come July?’ (February 23, 2005). The ABC was described as ‘underfunded and besieged’.

That the season on the ABC is in full swing is depressingly evident from the announcement by the Minister for Communications that the position of staff-elected director on the ABC board is to be abolished. Indeed it will be done in time to prevent the election of a replacement for Ramona Koval when her term expires in June. The minister says ‘there should be no question about the constituency that ABC directors are accountable to’. That would seem an excellent justification for a merit-based, transparent process of board appointments along British lines, but not for sending Ramona Koval to the sin bin.

Jill Greenwell, President of Friends of the ABC

It is a despicable example of political spin by Senator Helen Coonan to abolish the staff-elected director of the ABC board on the grounds of “modern principles of corporate governance”. (Coonan Media Release, March 24). The integrity of the ABC board is actually enhanced by the contribution of the staff-elected director.

Why is it OK for Janet Albrechtsen, who works for News Ltd, to be appointed by the board, but not a staff-elected director? What other atrocities does the Howard Government have in store for the ABC?

Jane Timbrell, Reid

Gary Humphries’ belief that there is such a thing as discreet advertising, consistent with the ABC’s independence from commercial influence, does not stand up to close scrutiny.

Worse is that he is raising the issue at the very time when the Government is deciding what will be in the May budget for the ABC.

Senator Humphries has stated publicly that he is an ABC supporter.

He has deplored the effect of inadequate funding upon the ABC’s production of Australian drama. He has for years said he would like to see a “significant boost” to ABC funding.

So now is the time for him to be exerting all the influence he commands as secretary of the Coalition’s back-bench committee on communications policy. In the lead-up to the budget, his call should be for the “significant boost” to be in the Government’s allocation of ABC funding for the next three years. After all, even his Minister for Communications has said that any changes to the advertising regime could not occur until the next triennium, beginning in 2009. So Senator Humphries—it’s the May budget that can save our ABC.

Jill Greenwell, President Friends of the ABC (ACT and Region)

Friends of the ABC today expressed concerns about statements from Senator Humphries and hints from the Minister for Communications about the issue of ABC commercialization, Spokesperson Margaret O’Connor said today.

‘The critical issue at the moment is what the ABC will receive in the forthcoming May Budget, rather than discussions about the supposed benefits of commercialization. Senator Humphries, a self-proclaimed Friend of the ABC, has a misguided belief in discreet advertising, which is an oxymoron, and seems to believe that commercial activities can be consistent with the ABC’s Charter,’ she said.

‘Experience both within the SBS and overseas has demonstrated otherwise. The Friends welcome Senator Coonan’s comments of support for the ABC but are less enthusiastic about her hints about commercial activities.’

The Friends also spoke up about the KPMG review requested by the ABC and demanded that it be publicly released.

‘Reports in the media suggest that the review has confirmed what the Friends have been saying for years; that the ABC manages its existing funds very well and desperately needs more. Why haven’t the results of the review been made public? The Friends can only conclude that the Government does not want to give this issue any fuel. It is in the public interest that the review results be released. We need to know.’

‘This issue is crucial. It is a matter of whether the Australian public wants to continue to be well served by an independent public broadcaster, well funded and free from commercial and political pressures. It is a matter of the public interest.’

Glad tidings about history Angela Shanahan (Let’s learn from history, CT, Fibular 4), Brendan Nelson and John Howard must surely feel very proud of the ABC, particularly Radio National, for flying the history flag so high. They produce massively more historical programs than any other broadcaster.

Start with Hindsight, specifically on Australian history. Then add the several book programs where authors frequently expound on their published histories and biographies.

Big ideas frequently produces historical programs—remember the six-part series Patriots Three: Billy Hughes, Lloyd George and Keith Murdoch?

There are recurring historical and biographical segments in the science, art and architecture, religious and rural programs.

More recent history comes alive in the in-depth interviews with people in their 80s and 90s and the book readings of autobiographies in First Person.

Chronological history—remember the wonderful Open Learning year-long programs, produced cooperatively by Radio National and several universities, are alas no longer broadcast but replaced by endless repeats of the business units.

Other losses from funding cuts and, paradoxically, a government-appointed board intent on dumbing down, include The Europeans, primarily current affairs but with many historical programs, and the oral history Verbatim, now playing only repeats.

And who can ever forget the marvellous A Thousand Years in a Day played on the first day of the new millennium. Starting at the year 1000, an hour was devoted to each century. You can’t get more chronological than that.

Judith Iltis, Curtin

Ninety per cent of OECD countries fund their public broadcasters more than Australia does the ABC. Taxpayer funding for the ABC has declined by 1.67 per cent per annum for nearly two decades to about 10¢ a day per taxpayer. Taxpayers, on average, were prepared to pay 30 per cent more in 2000.

The ABC requires at least 15c a day now to remain a service to all Australians as it has been for nearly 75 years.

John Keen, Friend of the ABC, Page

‘Friends of the ABC applaud the ABC’s proposal to increase production of Australian drama, children’s programs, and Australian documentaries by about 170 hours over the next three years, said Spokesperson Ms Margaret O’Connor today. ‘We urge the Government to support the ABC’s request for an investment fund which will bring us more of our own Australian stories, and also provide a boost to all the talent in the television production sector.’

‘The drop to an all-time low of 20 hours new ABC-produced Australian drama in 2005 is a disgrace,’ Ms O’Connor said. Last time the ABC made a similar request the Government rejected it, and we’ve seen the result. We hope for better this time around.’

‘Another welcome initiative is the ABC’s proposal to address under-served regional and outer-metropolitan radio and radio online services. Locally relevant radio is one reason why the ABC is so loved across Australia’, she said.

‘The third of the new services for which funding is sought will make the take-up of digital TV more compelling. The ABC seeks to generate an extra 200 hours of digital-only content for ABC2 and Broadband platforms. This initiative will be welcomed by ABC2 viewers, will encourage a wider audience, and is a terribly important part of the ABC’s effort to remain relevant in a changing technological world.’

Friends of the ABC also urge support for the ABC’s request for funds to close the gap between the ABC’s needs and the amount it is receiving from the Government. For programming purposes, the ABC is down $51m on what it had 10 years ago, according to relevations at Senate Estimates last October. It is simply not possible to maintain quality and diversity in 2006 on 1996 income levels.

‘Friends of the ABC strongly support the ABC’s request for the National Interest Initiative funding, $54.4 million over three years, to be rolled into general appropriation. Otherwise this money will cease in 2007–08. The regional radio stations and the new programs made possible by this Initiative are too important to hinge on such short-term funding.’

‘The ABC’s proposals are by no means excessive or extravagant, but they will enable it to maintain the quality and the diversity of its programs at a high standard, and they will also enable the broadcaster to introduce innovations—both essential if Aunty, at over 70, is to get a new lease on life.’

The ABC’s budget for the next three years is of critical importance to the broadcaster (“ABC says it needs $38m in new funds”, February 4, p6).

If Aunty is not to decline into old age and irrelevance, she needs funds.

Of particular concern to Canberrans is the fate of our locally produced ABC TV news.

The funding for our weekend television news bulletin service will cut out in 2007–08.

The ABC has asked for that short-term funding, part of the Government's National Interest Initiatives Program—about $18m per annum—to be rolled into its triennial budget.

This local item is only one in the ABC’s request to fill the funding gap between costs and income. It is, however, an important one if we in Canberra are to feel that it is indeed “our ABC”.

Jill Greenwell, President, Friends of the ABC (ACT & Region)

Canberra Times readers may not be aware of the impact on Canberra’s local weekend TV news if the ABC submission for the federal budget in May is unsuccessful.

Your report (February 4, p6) described the ABC’s bid for an additional $38.4 million to increase production of drama and other programs and to encompass new technology.

The bid is part the ABC’s 2006–09 triennial funding submission.

However, it didn’t mention that the ABC is also seeking funding to maintain the Canberra TV weekend news and other regional and news services on a permanent basis.

These programs are currently funded under a special program (the National Interest Initiative) which is due to expire in 2007-08.

If the submission is unsuccessful, we have no certainty that these programs will continue.

The Government could decide to stop the funding and the programs will be lost—another example of loss of local content (not to mention employment for Canberrans).

Time will tell if the Government’s commitment to maintaining regional coverage is real.

Surely the regional radio stations and news programs supported by this funding are too important to hinge on short-term government decisions?

Howard Silcock, Narrabundah
(actually a joint effort with several other members)

I noted in The Canberra Times (February4, p6), that the ABC, in submitting its three-year budget to government, is asking for more funds to increase children's TV programming.

The ABC has proved itself to be expert in the production of high-quality, stimulating programs in this field.

In the light of the present concerns about childhood obesity in young children, there must be many parents who would like to have an increased choice of programs their children can watch, and many parents who would prefer their children not to be exposed to the advertising of food on the commercial stations.

If the Government is to show real concern about the problems of obesity in children, then I think it should loosen the presently extremely tight purse strings it imposes on the ABC and accede to this very modest additional funding.

The ABC is an amazing organisation in giving Australians a huge diversity of programs to cater for a wide variety of listeners' needs, on very limited funds.

It is to be hoped that, at least in this particular case, the ABC's request will be heard.

Nancy Miller, Campbell

It is good that Russell Balding can say that “the ABC remains a highly relevant part of our national infrastructure, and a critical player in Australia’s media and cultural sector” (ABC seeking new head after Balding quits CT, January 21, p.3).

It is not good that his departure coincides exactly with crucial decision-making about the ABC’s future.

Somewhat ironically, in the next week or so, Russell Balding himself will be releasing details of the ABC’s funding requests for the next three-year period.

Next month at Senate Estimates he will appear to answer questions about ABC funding (or at least I assume he will make a farewell appearance).

Whether the ABC will get the funds to meet its charter obligations will be decided between now and the May Budget.

It is a great pity that Russell Balding will not be leading the lobbying.

Jill Greenwell President (Friends of the ABC ACT & Region)

Friends of the ABC today commented on the resignation of Russell Balding as ABC Managing Director. Spokesperson Ms Margaret O’Connor said ‘The appointment of the new Managing Director comes at a critical time for the ABC. Public Broadcasting is at the crossroads in this country and internationally. The new MD will oversee a large organisation with dedicated and hardworking staff which is treasured by Australians for its role in reflecting our national identity in myriads of ways, both at home and abroad. But the ABC is severely underfunded, which has resulted in cut-backs in many areas of its services, most notably in the area of local content. It has also been the subject of a campaign of unrelenting attacks which have been ideological and political in nature.’

Ms O’Connor said ‘The fact that the new MD will need a commitment to public service principles and the ABC Charter goes without saying. But to lead the ABC in these times, a special skillset is required.’

‘Mr Balding’s accountancy background was no doubt useful to him in his previous role, given the state of the ABC’s funding. The Friends hope that the ABC’s funding fortunes improve with the forthcoming national Budget. But if they don’t, the new MD and his or her team in finances will need to be able to work a few miracles to maintain existing services.’

‘As well as being a financial genius, the new MD will be required to respond to an unprecedented and exhausting campaign of unrelenting attacks and unsubstantiated accusations of bias occurring in the daily broadsheets, particularly in News Limited publications. He or she will need to be mindful that while defending the ABC from these attacks, ABC staff must be supported in their role as makers of incisive, balanced and pertinent programming, including news and current affairs, which has been a hallmark of this Australian institution since it came into being.’

‘We wish him or her well in their new position.’

The Friends of the ABC are very disappointed with Senator Gary Humphries’ comments today in relation to his proposal that advertising on the ABC could help address the decline in its local drama production, which would ‘meet the interests of taxpayers half-way.’

Senator Humphries comments that if the ‘Government maintains funding to the ABC in real terms, which it has since 1997 … this could provide a significant boost to the ABC’s coffers.’ The word ‘maintain’ is the key one here. The Senator refers to the maintenance of a very reduced budget which was slashed when the current Government came to office—to the tune of $66 million, in direct contravention of election promises. This was on top of funding cuts which commenced in the mid 1980s under the then Labor Government. Comparatively, the ABC’s funding now ranks 17 out or 18 alongside other international public broadcasters. What has been ‘maintained’ is a national tragedy—but nothing a good dose of base funding restoration wouldn’t cure. Then the ABC could afford drama.

He also states that advertising on the SBS has not compromised its ability to fulfil its charter and that ‘after all, the ABC already promotes its own products between programs’. The Friends believe that advertising of non-ABC products, if allowed, would risk damaging the public confidence enjoyed by the Broadcaster and may risk editorial integrity or influence program making decisions. Such a move would be opposed by the Friends and, we believe, by the community at large.

I do not intend to enter the debate about my appointment to the ABC board. Debate and a diversity of views are good things. However, the debate should be conducted on an accurate basis. Jill Greenwell (Letters, February 26–27) writes that I have a conflict of interest because I am currently employed by the Murdoch press.

This is incorrect. I am not, and have never been, an employee of the Murdoch press, or any other media outlet (including Fairfax) for which I have written. I am, and have always been, an independent contractor. I do not owe News Ltd and News Ltd does not owe me the duties inherent in an employment relationship. Accordingly, there is no legal or practical conflict that would hinder me in acting as a director of the ABC.

Janet Albrechtsen Bronte

Board appointment makes it plain just whose ABC it is

What sort of independence can ABC viewers and listeners expect Janet Albrechtsen, the latest appointment to the ABC board, to respect ("Columnist appointed to ABC board", Herald, February 25)?

Never has the need for a transparent and merit-based appointments procedure been more clearly demonstrated. The reasons for appointment should be available for all to see and should not be based on personal or political connections.

This shows the Government's contempt for all that a public broadcaster should stand for. How could they appoint an employee of the Murdoch press to a board which, among other things, is charged with ensuring "that the gathering and presentation by the corporation of news and information is accurate and impartial according to the recognised standards of objective journalism" (ABC Act)? At the very least there is a conflict of interest for a journalist currently employed by a media outlet.

Two more appointments remain to be made this year to the board. Only if we all protest, and loudly, is there the faintest chance that this Government won't stack the ABC with people who don't know and don't care about the critical and credible insights which only an independent public broadcaster can contribute.

Jill Greenwell President, Friends of the ABC (ACT and Region)

Following the appointment of Ms Janet Albrechtsen to the board of the ABC, Friends of the ABC have called on the government to reform the process by which appointments are made to the ABC board. Ms Albrechtsen, who writes for the Australian, has been a fierce and unrelenting critic of the ABC.

Commenting on the appointment Friends spokesperson Ms Margaret O’Connor said: “I think it is fair to describe Ms Albrechtsen as an ideological zealot, which, in itself, does not disqualify her from the ABC board. Our problem is with the political balance on the ABC board, and with the appointment process.

“In selecting commentators to appear on its programs, the ABC is, quite properly, required to provide a balance of opinion. But in selecting members of the ABC board the government appoints Ms Albrechtsen and other ‘usual suspects’ time after time,” Ms O’Connor said. “When you get so many Directors who have been such open critics of the ABC and such a preponderance of the same political views, we say the ABC Board is screaming out for a bit of balance. Any ABC producer who chose the government appointed members of the ABC board as the panel for a current affairs discussion would be quickly found guilty of bias.

“Not only does the government appoint the usual suspects, but the process itself is also suspect. It happens secretly, and without any apparent relationship to the qualifications required to run a half billion dollar a year organisation. It is time that the government followed the example of the Conservative government in the UK and implemented an open, transparent and non-partisan method of finding qualified people to run our national broadcaster. So say the Friends of the ABC.”

Dear Sir,

Only on Wednesday did we read "Will it be open season on the ABC come July?" (CT 23 February), yet today we find that the season has already begun.

The appointment of Janet Albrechtsen to the ABC Board shows the Government's contempt for all that a public broadcaster should stand for. How could they appoint an employee of the Murdoch press to a board which among other things is charged with the duty "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" (ABC Act- Section 8). At the very least there is a conflict of interest for a journalist currently employed by any media outlet, let alone by the Murdoch press powered by its ethos of commercialism. What sort of independence (another quality which the ABC is statutorily required to protect) can we ABC viewers and listeners expect Ms Albrechtsen to respect?

But wait, there's more! Two more appointments remain to be made this year to the ABC Board. There's a review of the ABC's budget under way, and also changes to the ABC complaints procedure in contemplation. By July the season will be just about over.

Jill Greenwell
President
Friends of the ABC (ACT & Region)

Dear Sir,

Trish Bolton is not alone in fearing the worst for the ABC when the Coalition takes control of the Senate. (Will it be open season on the ABC come July?, CT 23 Feb). Friends of the ABC has been agitating to restore the ABC's funding to a level where innovation, Australian identity and thought provoking journalism are fostered; we have been pressing for a transparent process of appointing ABC Board members on their merit, not on their connections; and we have become alarmed that the over-scrupulous investigation of complaints against the ABC is creating a climate of timidity within the ABC. If these issues were worrying us while the Government was constrained by the Senate, what on earth will the ABC face after July when the constraints are lifted?

It is not only her Australian family which needs the ABC more than ever; the ABC needs every friend she can get, and needs us to be vocal in her defence.

Jill Greenwell
President
Friends of the ABC (ACT & Region)

Dear Lesna,

I am appalled at the lack of clarity in the ABC’s media release announcing “ABC TV Program Changes”. It was very difficult to get past everybody’s reported delight and excitement to what it actually is that they’re excited about.

Then, buried at the end of the report, there was a brief and strangely defensive reference to the current program in the 6.30 timeslot. It seemed to be saying that George Negus, if he agrees to it, may get 1 program a week instead of his current 4.

Why is GNT being slashed? Not only George Negus, but his audience, deserve a straightforward explanation.

What we got instead was a rebuttal of ‘reports’ about his audience size.

Whose reports? And why on earth compare GNT’s audience share with repeat British comedies? What possible relevance does that comparison have?

This is not the way for the ABC to treat one of its liked and respected producers, nor is it the way to treat the ABC’s audience. You’ll lose the lot of us at this rate.

Jill Greenwell
President Friends of the ABC (ACT & Region)

In response to ABC funding announcements from both the Liberal and Labor parties, Friends of the ABC are calling for a greater commitment from both sides of politics to rectify the ABC's grim funding situation as a matter of urgency.

When ranked comparatively with other international public broadcasters in terms of funding, the ABC is ranked 17 out of 18, with the only broadcaster funded worse per capita being that of Greece. This is a cause for national shame. The ABC needs a 30 per cent funding boost to restore parity. Given the budget surplus and the attention other areas have enjoyed from both the Liberal and Labor parties, the Friends would like to see a bipartisan recognition of the ABC's dire funding needs.

The Liberal party has just announced that it will provide a small amount of money for the extension and improved coverage of ABC Newsradio and Local Radio. Questions need to be asked as to why the Liberal Party has taken it upon itself to specify where the ABC should spend its money and the implications of this for editorial control.

While the ALP has also promised the ABC a small amount of money, the bulk of which commences in 2006, neither party comes anywhere near addressing the funding shortfall resulting from cuts imposed by both parties when they were in power. The ABC needs two things: adequate funding and the capacity for an independent Board to decide the ABC's funding priorities. The Australian people deserve no less.

The good news?

Friends of the ABC argued for the exclusion in its entirety of public broadcasting and of local content regulation from the Free Trade Agreement with the US.

It was good news, in a very limited way, that the ALP stood up for our current local content quotas, by persuading the Government to agree to make them law. It’s good news because at the moment it is just an administrative matter to change our local content rules. The effect of the Free Trade Agreement as proposed was that although local content levels were unchanged - for now - if in the future any government reduced them they could never be returned back up again.

What the ALP amendments mean is that it will be much harder for any future government to reduce our local content. They'll have to pass a law to do it, not just change some regulations within the bureaucracy.

But unfortunately those local content rules apply only to radio and free-to-air TV. Not to multi-channelling, not to subscription TV, and certainly not to the new media of the future.

So in the multi-channelling environment, which we have yet to experience in any big way - but it won't be long - we'll by and large be getting less local content. Why? Well, if a multi-channelling broadcaster has 3 channels, then 2 of them must conform to the local content quota - which is the same percentage as now - but if the broadcaster has 15 channels then no more than 3 are required to conform to the local content requirements, therefore less than now.

And Australia will not be able to introduce any increase without the permission of the United States.

In pay TV it's not the amount of local content, but the percentage of expenditure on it which is fixed. 10 - 20% of expenditure has to be devoted to local productions. Sounds good? Well it's not a huge proportion in a specialist channel (documentaries, children's, the arts and educational), and it's specialist channels which we can expect to see more of.

And Australia will not be able to introduce any increase without the permission of the United States.

Finally, the new media provisions are alarmingly negative: they aim to ensure that Australian content is 'not unreasonably denied' to Australian consumers of these services. To demonstrate this the Government has to find that the Australian content is not readily available, and must do so in a way which according to the Agreement is 'no more trade restrictive than necessary'.

Give up? That little lot is a lawyer's paradise!

But for the ABC it will be more important than ever to live up to its Charter to produce programmes that contribute to a sense of national identity….and reflect the cultural diversity of the Australian community

Jill Greenwell
President, FABC (ACT August 2004

Friends of the ABC were dumbfounded to hear Senator Rod Kemp on ABC AM (27 July 2004) baldly state that Australian local content is protected under the terms of the proposed US Free Trade Agreement, Friends of the ABC Spokesperson Margaret O’Connor said today.

‘Senator Kemp should examine its provisions a little more closely.’ Said Ms O’Connor. ‘Under the agreement the Australian Government of the day will actually lose all control over local content quotas. We certainly could not increase them, and if a future government decided to reduce local content requirements, no government after that could restore them. How does Senator Kemp define that as “protection”?’

‘It is worrying that senior political figures such as Senator Kemp appear so unconcerned about something which could have far reaching effects on the future of the Australian audio-visual industry such as this proposed agreement. Luckily, growing numbers of Australians, including groups like the Friends, are reading its fine print. This is because clear unambiguous information, clearly setting out its potential long term ramifications, is hard to come by. Senator Kemp’s comments on AM are yet another example of this,’ said Ms O'Connor.

‘It is not too late for the ALP to reject the agreement as it stands, or demand that local content regulation and public broadcasting, at the very least, are specifically listed for exclusion. The Friends are closely watching the outcome of this debate and we urge the ALP to stand firm on this issue.’

Australia will certainly be trading away its ability to govern local content policy if it agrees to the US Free Trade Agreement, ACT & Region President of Friends of the ABC, Jill Greenwell, said today.

It is simply wrong to state, as Arts Minister Rod Kemp did this morning on the ABC’s AM, that local content is protected. What is protected is local content at its current levels only, and only on radio and free-to-air TV. The Australian Government would lose its capacity to make any change in future to that level—except downwards. And if that were done, because of the ‘standstill’ clause on local content of the Agreement, it would never be possible to return to today’s quota.

However, it is incredibly shortsighted to imagine that our current local content regulations will be adequate in all circumstances in the future. Even in the very foreseeable future, when a fourth TV network will be up for tender, the FTA would impose limitations. The idea of a channel with 100% local content is being floated as one possibility—but it would be out of the question if we’ve signed up to the FTA.

The complexity of the Agreement and the pages of fine print make it extremely difficult to take in all of its provisions, but the Minister ought to be able to do better.

Other FTA provisions, relating to the future media environment, not just to radio and free to air TV, actually reduce the amount of local content.

The FTA provides that if a multi-channelling broadcaster has three channels, then two of them must conform to the local content quota - which is the same percentage as now - but if the broadcaster has 15 channels then no more than three are required to conform to the local content requirements, therefore less than now.

In the case of pay TV it is expenditure quotas on local content which are fixed, at 10 – 20% of expenditure. This is not exactly a huge proportion in a specialist channel (documentaries, children’s, the arts and educational); and again we would be trading away any changes which a future Australian government might wish to legislate for.

Finally, the new media provisions are alarmingly negative: they aim to ensure that Australian content is ‘not unreasonably denied’ to Australian consumers of these services. To demonstrate this the Government has to find that the Australian content is not readily available, and must do so in a way which according to the Agreement is ‘no more trade restrictive than necessary’.

Anyone who can work their way through all those double negatives would have to be a communications law specialist!

Friends of the ABC fully supports the call by Senator Kate Lundy for a full and frank internal debate on the issue. If the ALP’s position on the FTA is going be based on ‘the national interest’, as Mark Latham assures us, local content should be in the forefront of their thinking.

Everyone who values hearing and seeing the Australian story told by Australians should be alarmed at the Minister’s complacency, and urge Labor to stand up for our unique Australian identity.

Jill Greenwell
President
Friends of the ABC (ACT & Region)

Friends of the ABC today renewed their call for a bi-partisan, de-politicised system of ABC Board appointments following comments by Michael Kroger and Rod Cameron on Lateline (23/7/04).

Friends Spokesperson Margaret O’Connor said ‘Kroger and Cameron’s comments were disturbing. Kroger evaded the important question of how to ensure relevant expertise on the Board, and, worryingly, Cameron described the concept of “some element of community involvement” as being “nice in theory”.’

‘But is it really all too hard?’ said Ms O'Connor. ‘Surely Kroger and Cameron are aware of the Nolan Rules, a system of Board appointee selection which ensures some transparency, independent short-listing of applicants, a selection criteria ensuring relevant skills and experience, and public advertisement of vacancies. This will ensure Board appointees are chosen for “what they know” rather than “who they know”. The process, however, does not entirely take the responsibility for appointments out of the Government’s hands, with the Minister making the final selection.’

‘This system, implemented successfully in the UK, has certainly proved to be more effective than “nice in theory”. The Friends believe that such a system, which creates more of a partnership between the Government and the community, should be implemented here also in relation to ABC Board appointments. This would enhance public confidence in the Board and in the political process generally. As a community group the Friends have been very persistent about promoting an improved Board appointments process. The ABC, and the Australian people, deserve no less.’

The Friends of the ABC today described as ‘bizarre and troubling’ the decision to subject ABC News and Current Affairs to monitoring by the media company Rehame, and the commissioning of an additional expensive Newspoll.

Friends of the ABC Spokesperson Ms Margaret O’Connor said “How many times should the ABC be subjected to these exercises before habitual and obsessive ABC critics are satisfied? How many Newspolls are enough, how many Audits, Senate Estimates, and Complaints bodies? The ABC is already reviewed to death, and comparatively far more accountable than commercial media outlets! There comes a time when groups like the Friends, and the community in general need to speak out strongly against the sustained and unprecedented political and ideological attacks endured by the Broadcaster in recent years. Enough is enough’, she said. ‘We demand to know the costs of conducting such exercises and their methodology. Repeated Newspolls, consistently vindicating the ABC’s coverage of News and Current Affairs, were commissioned in 1998, 1999, 2002 and 2003. Why is another required? What will the taxpayer pay for Rehame to monitor the ABC continually from the Budget to the Election, when the election date is unknown? How many episodes of ‘Behind the News’ could be produced for the costs of conducting these exercises?’ said Ms O’Connor.

The Friends also expressed concerns at reports that the decision was made in relation to this matter without a formal debate or Board motion on the basis of a single letter to the Chairman. ‘We need assurances that improper political pressure has not been brought to bear. The Friends will be doing some monitoring of our own in relation to this issue, and will continue to seek answers.’

Friends of the ABC today renewed their call for Professor David Flint to step aside from the ABA investigation into the former Minister Mr Richard Alston’s complaints into the ABC.

A spokesperson for Friends of the ABC, Margaret O’Connor, said that there were fresh allegations about Professor Flint’s relationship with Alan Jones which despite denials raised a sense of unease.

“Following the disclosure of Professor Flint’s extraordinary letter to Mr Jones on ABA letterhead, effusive as it was inappropriate, Professor Flint seems constantly to attract controversy and questions about his impartiality”, Ms O’Connor said.

“Today’s reported statements about alleged links between Alan Jones and his preference for Professor Flint as Head of the ABA, only highlight the need for this role to be occupied by someone who enjoys the trust and confidence of the public”, she said.

In the case of the former Minister’s complaints, the Friends believe Professor Flint should stand aside from this investigation firstly because Professor Flint is a direct appointee to the position of Head of the ABA by the person whose complaint he is now investigating. Mr Alston’s antagonism towards the ABC is well documented and his attacks unprecedented for those occupying his portfolio.

Secondly, Professor Flint himself has made specific criticisms of the ABC in his recent book Twilight of the Elites and has a background of enthusiastic activism in partisan causes.

“The Friends are also concerned about disturbing reports that Professor Flint’s own Board sought legal advice on whether there were grounds to exclude their Chairman from the ABC complaint investigation.

“The subject of much media and public discussion, the ABC complaints investigations have proved of great interest to the whole Australian community. The Friends of the ABC support an independent media complaints handling body headed by an independent and impartial Chairperson.

“The Australian community needs to have confidence in the result of any ABA complaints investigation, but especially so when it is in relation to the Public Broadcaster.” Ms O’Connor said.

Friends of the ABC spokesperson, Ms Margaret O’Connor, today raised concerns about a proposed commercial venture which would utilise popular ABC children's programs such as ‘Bananas in Pyjamas’ in an $100 theme park at the Royal Melbourne Showgrounds.

‘There are considerations in relation to commercial ventures of this nature which should be examined very carefully. Firstly, it is the role of the ABC under its Charter to educate, inform and entertain, in addition to providing an independent broadcasting service. To fulfil this role requires sufficient funding. The ABC has been underfunded since the mid 1980s’, she said.

‘It is not the role of the ABC to generate its own funds. This is the responsibility of the Government of the day. The current and previous administrations have failed to do this, creating a situation where the ABC is chronically starved of funds. However tempting, all internal revenue raising activities, such as the proposed involvement in the theme park, should be considered carefully by the ABC. Commercial activities of this nature risk the damage to the organisation’s credibility and reputation as a provider of independent program making. Nothing is worth risking the respect and trust in which the public holds the Broadcaster.’

Senator Richard Alston has stated repeatedly on programs such as The 7.30 Report that the ABC receives some $750 million in funding per annum.

Put like that, these statements give the impression that the ABC is flush with funds; but Mr Alston should be challenged on this.

The ABC’s budget actually constitutes a tiny proportion of overall government expenditure.

By way of international comparison, a recent Macquarie Bank survey found that the ABC was funded second-last out of 18 comparable public broadcasters.

Canadian taxpayers pay one and a half times as much per capita for the Canadian Broadcasting Corportation, and UK taxpayers pay no less than three times as much per capita for the BBC. (Professor Glen Withers, 2000).

Successive administrations have slowly chipped away at the ABC’s funding for more than 15 years.

If the Australian public wants a continuation of the quality ABC service we know and respect, both sides of politics must commit to funding the Broadcaster adequately, recognising the unique role it plays in Australian society, and respecting the growing anger of Australians who see the fiscal, commercial and political attacks on the Broadcaster for what they really are.

Margaret O’Connor
President, Friends of the ABC (ACT and Region)

What is Gerard Henderson (29 July 2003) suggesting? That in order to secure extra funding, ABC senior management should take the calculating and pragmatic approach of addressing each of Mr Alston's recent complaints in a sympathetic manner instead of objectively, comprehensively and on their individual merit? Funding should never be tied to whether or not the ABC always reports and acts in a manner favourable to the current government. To cynically link these two concepts is to fail to comprehend the spirit of the ABC Charter, editorial policies and ABC Act.

Henderson may pride himself on his realism in relation to this issue. But the public deserves better - a Broadcaster funded adequately, with appropriate external review mechanisms in place (as is certainly the case with the ABC - if only all media organisations were so accountable!) and free from attacks of a politicised nature.

Margaret O'Connor
Friends of the ABC (ACT and Region)

Senator Alston and Mr Howard are reported to be proposing yet another body to review complaints against the ABC. The work of ABC program makers is already subject to review by:

• The ABC’s (internal) Complaints Review Executive, headed by respected senior executive Murray Green.
• The ABC Board—all but two of whom were appointed by the Howard government.
• The Independent Complaints Review Panel. An external body of people not associated with the ABC, and appointed by the ABC Board.
• The Australian Broadcasting Authority, which can hear complaints against all broadcasters, including the ABC.
• A detailed review by businessman Bob Mansfield, appointed by Mr Howard, which found no evidence of ABC bias.
• The Australian National Audit Office, which regularly reviews the ABC. In its last report the ANAO found no evidence of bias, and reported that its editorial policies were “robust and effective”.
• The Senate Estimates Committee, where government Senators regularly cross-examine ABC executives.

Commenting on the latest proposals Friends of the ABC spokesperson Darce Cassidy said:

“There are already almost enough umpires to make up a football team. Having failed to get the verdict he wanted from any of the existing umpires, Senator Alston wants to add another.

“He could, as the present law provides, refer the matter to the Australian Broadcasting Authority. But the government appointed Chairman, Professor Flint, would have little credibility as an umpire, having already taken a partisan position on the ABC.

“If he tries long enough and hard enough Senator Alston will find someone who will give him the answer he wants, but this won’t fool anyone.

“The final arbiter is public opinion. Surveys show most Australians, and most Coalition voters, think the government misled them over the Iraq war. Other surveys have consistently shown that most Australians, and indeed most Coalition voters, think the ABC does a good job with news and current affairs.”

“The Friends of the ABC call upon Mr Alston to cease his campaign of harassment and intimidation against the ABC”, said Friends of the ABC (ACT and Region) President, Miss Margaret O’Connor, today.

“Mr Alston has now received his response from the ABC in relation to his 68 complaints of alleged ABC ‘bias’ in relation to reporting of the recent Coalition Middle East engagement. This will not satisfy him as he seems determined to continue his campaign against the Broadcaster. As Minister, Mr Alston is fully aware that the ABC is already reviewed off its feet, accountable as it is to its own internal review processes, the Australian Broadcasting Authority, regular Senate estimate hearings and the Australian National Audit Office. These review mechanisms make a mockery of Mr Alston's continued assertions that the ABC is not accountable enough. If only other media organisations were so scrutinised and so reviewed!

“If Mr Alston is unhappy with the response to his complaints he should pursue the matter further through the appropriate channels, not continue this campaign against the ABC and its staff.” said Ms O’Connor.

“The ABC was never intended to be a political advertisement for, or the obsequious lap dog of, the Government of the Day. The Australian public needs an independent Broadcaster which is free to report news and current affairs and from political interference. Mr Balding and the ABC Board have shown considerable courage in resisting these attempts to harass the Broadcaster. They have acted properly by doing so, and in accordance with the Charter and the ABC Act. The Friends of the ABC call on Mr Alston to cease and desist, and we urge Australians to continue their strong support for the ABC and Public Broadcasting.”

Haven’t we been seeing a lot of the Minister for Communications recently? Despite repeated criticisms of the quality of ABC News and Current Affairs, he apparently trusts the ABC sufficiently to use it, when it suits, to peddle his spin, appearing on such programs as Lateline, The Media Report and Insiders. On these programs we hear the oft-repeated mantra that this Government has maintained ABC funding. The only thing ‘maintained’ has been a massive depletion of $66 million inflicted by the Government on an already funding-depleted Broadcaster when it first came to office.

And then there’s Mr Alston’s mantra that the ABC receives a massive $750 million per annum in funding. Put like that, it sounds like a lot of money. But what proportion of the Government’s overall annual expenditure does this comprise, Mr Alston? A 2001 study by the Macquarie Bank found that the ABC’s per capita revenue was the second lowest of comparable public broadcasters in eighteen Western countries, with the ABC’s per capita revenue being just over half of the average. That we receive such internationally recognised quality progamming, under such straitened circumstances, is a tribute to ABC staff.

As to the issue of bias and accountability—no organisation is faultless or above error, including the ABC. But, as you would be only all too aware, Mr Alston, the Broadcaster is reviewed frequently and comprehensively, subject as it is to its stringent editorial policies, Senate Estimates hearings, Australian National Audit Office reviews, the Australian Broadcasting Authority, and the Independent Complaints Review Panel. Would that certain other Australian media outlets were so scrutinised and so accountable!

Margaret O’Connor
President, Friends of the ABC (ACT and Region)

It was a US politician, Senator Hiram Johnson, a member of George Bush's Republican Party, who said in 1917 that “the first casualty, when war comes, is truth”.

This has been repeated so often that it has been an uncontroversial cliché. Yet when ABC Director of News and Current Affairs took the same skeptical stance, saying that “the military are lying bastards”, he is accused of being anti-American.

Perhaps we should add that the first casualty, when politics is involved, is logic.

Darce Cassidy
Friends of the ABC

Friends of the ABC (ACT and region) have called on the Federal Government to reform its process of ABC Board appointments.

This follows the appointment of Dr Ron Brunton to replace well-known Liberal identity Michael Kroger, whose term expired in February.

Friends of the ABC president Margaret O’Connor said Dr Brunton was a former director of the indigenous affairs unit of the Institute of Public Affairs, described commonly as a right wing think tank.

The Institute of Public Affairs has been an unrelenting and bitter critic of the ABC, she said.

“Not only does the government appoint the usual suspects to the ABC Board, but the process itself is also suspect. It happens secretly and without any apparent relationship to the qualifications required to run a half billion dollar a year organisation.

“The Friends of the ABC calls on the government for a transparent and non-partisan method of appointing qualified members to the board.”

‘The quality of the ABC Online service, long appreciated by Australians, is now becoming known and respected internationally,’ Ms Margaret O’Connor, President, Friends of the ABC, said today.

‘According to the website of Online Publishing News in an article on 12 March 2003, which compared the Guardian Unlimited online news service with other well-used non-US news sites, ABC Online was described as a ‘well respected source of information not just for local or national news but also for global news’ with ‘24 per cent of its audience...from North America’.

Online Publishing News has also described ABC Online as having ‘the greatest geographical spread among the sites studied’ with ‘strong numbers of surfers visiting from outside (its) home regions... The January data shows that the Guardian and the ABC are well-respected sources of information not just for local or national news but also for global news.’

In addition, the article states ‘Both the Guardian and the ABC are the top news domain in their home countries as well as being global destinations. Their audience numbers are impressive even when compared to well-known global news sources like CNN....and the BBC.’

‘The Friends of the ABC is very proud of the increasing recognition of the ABC by non-Australians as a reliable source of balanced, unbiased and comprehensive news coverage, as noted by Online Publishing News. Such an independent voice is especially important in times of war. We hope the Government will remember this in the lead up to the May budget announcement and in the light of the Friends’ repeated calls for the restoration of the Broadcaster’s depleted funding’, Ms O’Connor said.