Page 490 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 8 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The government is also fully funding the ABC’s digital and transmission distribution costs, and Ms Porter referred to that. But it needs to be recognised that the cost over the decade from 2001 is estimated to be in the order of $600 million and it is enabling the ABC to roll out its digital television services to match the coverage of its current analog service. Without this funding our national broadcasters would not be able to participate in what is one of the most important broadcasting developments in the history of television, notwithstanding my comments expressed last night about how this whole digital rollout has been handled.
Certainly, when you look at those figures, the comment that government support for the ABC and its commitment to public broadcasting is lacking cannot be justified. I ask: if that $600 million commitment is inadequate, what on earth is the amount that Ms Porter thinks is appropriate?
To ensure that the ABC uses the funding to its greatest potential, the government has agreed, in conjunction with the ABC, to undertake a funding adequacy and efficiency review. Senator Coonan released the terms of reference for this review on 17 June last year. They were drafted in consultation with the ABC. KPMG, an external consultant selected through an open tender process, is conducting the review.
The review is close to completion and the results of the review will be taken into account during the government’s consideration of ABC funding in the 2006-07 budget. As was stated previously by the federal communications minister, the ABC will not lose funding as a result of this process. It is consistent with the federal government’s election commitment that there be an examination of the efficiency of the ABC’s use of its funding, which is integral to the review, and any efficiencies identified will be available to the ABC to use in meeting its charter obligations.
I do not see any basis on which the review of efficiencies of operations is not appropriate. Indeed, this territory government is going through that process at the moment and, in the wake of the departure of the Treasurer of this territory, we are waiting with bated breath for any proclamations by Mr Costello in terms of reviewing ACT government operations.
The ABC recently released a summary of its triennial funding submission. In that the ABC is seeking additional funding to extend the reach of its current radio and online services, to increase the amount of Australian content on ABC TV—and Ms Porter referred to that—and new digital content to encourage the take-up of digital TV. I am advised today that these proposals will be considered in the context of the budget process and in the context of the outcome of the funding adequacy and efficiency review.
As for suggestions that have come from the other side or those outside this place that the government has cut the ABC’s funding, it is very important for those of us who have got a bit of a memory to point out that the largest drop in ABC funding occurred during the late 1980s and early 1990s under the federal Labor government. That is right. The champions of the ABC were the ones who put the axe in. The reason why the ABC’s funding was reduced at the commonwealth level in the period 1996 and 1997 is that the ABC, like nearly every other government agency, was required to contribute to the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .