The Iron Ore Lady, Gina Rinehart, wants to reduce taxes and government spending to help the less fortunate. As part of her Grand Program, she’d like to get rid of the ABC. No matter it’s the most trusted news source in the country – sacrifices must be made if Gina’s compassion is to be given a fuller voice. And with one swing of her axe on the ABC’s neck, she’d save a billion dollars a year which, as it isn’t hers, she’d palm off to those more in need than she is, apparently.
The Federal Government doesn’t seem to see things in quite the same way as Gina. It recently announced tens of millions more for the ABC and promised five-year “funding plans” for it and the SBS.
The extent to which these decisions might have been affected by a recent speech to the National Press Club by the chair of the ABC Board, Kim Williams, is unknown. What is more certain is that Williams’ speech was unconvincing and, if it represents what he intends to do to advance the ABC, optimism should be restrained.
In a flurry of distracting metaphors, Williams describes the quantity of information and the speed with which it is distributed as a “Tsunami, breaking through our feeble levees, washing over us, surging through the streets to potentially reshape our mental landscape especially the minds of the young”.
If we don’t watch it, Williams says, “we will increasingly tell ourselves stories that are not really about us, but part of an extended global imaginary – our own stories disappearing under the waves.” And for “the young” all this is “compromising their confidence and knowledge of Australian history, Australian stories, Australian accents and Australian values in ways that may harm our future”.
According to Williams, his Tsunami is “damaging our social cohesion…generating unnecessary conflict, weakening us”.
“Our first line of defence” he says “is to create an environment in which facts from credible sources predominate”. He longs for a “common set of beliefs that can bind us together… the ingredients of what we used to call ‘patriotism’.” He reckons we “need an understanding and appreciation of our place in the world, our beliefs and our national interests” and to do that we “need to invigorate our entire homegrown media industry”, a task, Williams says, “will necessarily fall mostly to the ABC”.
And so Williams claims more money for the ABC, complaining about declines in operating revenue in real terms and making debating points about how spending on the ABC has declined significantly as a proportion of total Commonwealth outlays over the last 25 years.
There’s room for unease, however, about Williams’ pitch. The ABC “charter” is set out in section 6 of the Australian Broadcasting Commission Act and it does not extend to:
- protecting the community from the perils associated with ebbs and flows of information in the modern world;
- promoting “Australian values” and “common sets of beliefs” while banging the drums of “patriotism”; or
- re-invigorating “our entire homegrown media industry”.
The legal Charter for the ABC requires it to:
- provide a high standard broadcasting service;
- contribute to a “sense of national identity” and inform and entertain;
- provide educational services;
- broadcast to other countries;
- provide digital services; and
- promote the musical, dramatic and performing arts.
In doing so, the Commission must have regard to other broadcasting services, the country’s multicultural character and the education provision by state governments. That’s the law.
Williams’ speech hardly pauses to reflect on these legal responsibilities and obligations, while in advancing the cause of the ABC as a kind of public safety committee he risks putting the cart before the horse and hobbling the Commission with expectations it shouldn’t have.
Of course, the ABC must be sensitive about the context in which it operates, but that context should be more about how it goes about its work, not what it does. And if it meets its legal mandated charter, the odds are it will help to mitigate some of the evils Williams now sees plaguing the land. But neither he nor the Commission should be promoting codes of “Australian values” in a country where citizens should be free to develop their own and live within the law. It’s not a long step from the advocacy of “values” and “patriotism” to the compression of liberties and associated unpleasantness.
The important thing is for Williams (and his board) to concentrate on its legally mandated functions, rather than seeking for the ABC ancillary objectives and functions he might see as desirable.
Further, consideration of the adequacy of the ABC’s budget should be based on assessments of what is needed for the Commission to satisfy those legal obligations. Williams’ speech provides no such assessment with him relying on more dubious arguments about declines in real funding with their tacit assumptions about the rightness of historical levels of funding.
For going on a hundred years the ABC, if in various forms, obviously has been an important part of Australian society to which it has contributed much. Despite Rinehart’s wish to be rid of it, it’s likely her desires would not be shared by most citizens and that therefore no government would have the guts to grant her heart’s desire. Anyway, she could ease her conscience by giving the less well-off a squillion or two from her zillions.
If the ABC survives, it will have a better chance if prospering if its chairman and board get things in the right order by concentrating on its legal charter and avoiding things it cannot or should be trying on. Fixing up the utterly shambolic condition of its news website would be a good start.
Paddy Gourley is a former senior public servant.
Contributions to Pearls and Irritations
Your contribution will fund quality independent comment and analysis in Pearls and Irritations
Contribute
