|
senate vote 2018-05-10#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2018-05-30 16:22:59
|
Title
Bills — Communications Legislation Amendment (Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund) Bill 2017; in Committee- Communications Legislation Amendment (Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund) Bill 2017 - in Committee - Ideology
Description
<p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>The committee is considering the Communications Legislation Amendment (Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund) Bill 2017. The question is that the bill stand as printed.</p> <p class="speaker">Deborah O'Neill</p>- The majority voted against [amendments (1), (2) and (3)](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-05-10.59.1) moved by Greens Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/sarah_hanson-young), which means they failed.
- Senator Hanson-Young explained that:
- > *Basically, what these amendments do is correct the problem that we have had with this piece of legislation from the beginning: that there is an ideological blindness that's been drawn into this bill. We want to make sure that if you're an Australian publisher, if you're an Australian news outlet, if you employ Australian journalists, if you're reporting Australian news and you're doing it for an Australian audience and you're within that small sphere as outlined by the criteria, you have access to this fund. It shouldn't matter whether you are friends with the government ideologically or not.*
- ### What does this bill do?
- The [purpose of the bill](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1718a/18bd085) is:
- > *to establish a legislative framework for a grant funding scheme, the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund, to be administered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).*
- Read more in the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1718a/18bd085).
<p>Senator Fifield, to get back to where we were last night before we moved to the adjournment, the Greens amendment was before us, and Senator Hanson-Young was asking you a number of questions about the ABC. It's clear that, in the last 48 hours, the impact of the further cuts to the ABC has become quite a significant part of the public conversation. Certainly, Friends of the ABC are very concerned about this continuing attack on Aunty, our great institution the ABC. I would like to ask you a few questions around the nature of the efficiency studies et cetera that you have indicated will be part of your further action with regard to the ABC. Firstly, Senator Fifield, do you think that the government's 2014<i> ABC and SBS efficiency study</i> was effective in getting the ABC to become more efficient?</p> <p class="speaker">Mitch Fifield</p><p>Yes.</p> <p class="speaker">Deborah O'Neill</p><p>If you believe that it was effective, Minister, I'm having a bit of trouble understanding why you need a further efficiency study and review now.</p> <p class="speaker">Mitch Fifield</p><p>That was 2014. This is 2018. All Commonwealth entities should continually strive to make sure that they are the best stewards of taxpayer dollars, and I think it's a matter of good practice to have periodic reviews of efficiency in organisations. I think this will be to the benefit of the public broadcasters.</p> <p class="speaker">Deborah O'Neill</p><p>Are you aware of the impact of the efficiency measures that were undertaken then, and what part of the ABC's budget is actually purely for operational reasons—what percentage?</p> <p class="speaker">Mitch Fifield</p><p>I did happily respond to questions from Senator Hanson-Young last night in relation to the ABC, although it's not directly related to the bill, and I am doing so with Senator O'Neil—again, although the ABC is not related to this bill. But if Senator O'Neil or other senators are wanting to go into detail about the ABC's operational arrangements, then those are matters that I would suggest are best saved for the ABC when they appear before estimates. As colleagues know, the ABC has operational independence and is best placed to talk about its operations and the components of that.</p> <p class="speaker">Deborah O'Neill</p><p>Thank you for reminding us of the upcoming opportunity of estimates. And I have to say, the acquired taste is very much one that I enjoy now, and I'm looking forward to the opportunity to get more information from the ABC about what they think the impact of your $83.7 million efficiency cut in the recent budget will be. My understanding is that the ABC's overheads are only eight per cent of its overall operational budget. How much further would the government like to push that efficiency beyond eight per cent?</p> <p class="speaker">Mitch Fifield</p><p>As the government has indicated, there is an indexation pause for the ABC in the next triennium. The current triennium has a year to go. We have announced that there will be an efficiency review, and we will have more to say in the near future about that efficiency review. But obviously I can't pre-empt what the efficiency review will find before they have undertaken their work, and I'm sure that those who conduct that review will work cooperatively with the ABC and that the ABC will work cooperatively with them.</p> <p class="speaker">Deborah O'Neill</p><p>Just to be clear, you said that you'll have more to say about the efficiency review. Did you mean after it's undertaken? Or will there be more about the efficiency review before it commences?</p> <p class="speaker">Mitch Fifield</p><p>What I was referring to was that we will have more to say about the efficiency review—who will conduct it and what the terms of reference will be—in the near future.</p> <p class="speaker">Deborah O'Neill</p><p>Senator Fifield, do you concede that the ABC will not be able to find $83.7 million in efficiencies without staffing or content cuts?</p> <p class="speaker">Mitch Fifield</p><p>I'll just put the ABC indexation pause into context. It represents the equivalent of about 2.6 per cent of the ABC's budget. That's 2.6c for each dollar that the ABC receives. It's important to bear in mind that, over the next triennium, the ABC will receive $3.16 billion, and what we are talking about here is $85 million. I have confidence that the ABC, following the work of the efficiency review and their own efforts, will be in a position to be even better stewards of taxpayer dollars.</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>I have a question for the minister on the same type of subject. We're dealing with the Communications Legislation Amendment (Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund) Bill 2017. Is there any prospect of ABC rural and regional—which is mainly radio but some TV—having anything to do with the regional innovation fund? That's one question. The other question is related to that but also related to what my colleague opposite has been asking about. As I often point out, the ABC operates across a range of areas—triple j for the young people, and classical music, which is something I really enjoy; they have a range of different radio stations and television outlets. But a lot of them, of course, are concentrated in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide—the capital cities—where there are an enormous number of other opportunities for the listeners or the viewers to hook into other news, information and entertainment outlets. Where I am, in Townsville and Ayr, we do have some opportunities for commercial operations but, when you get a bit further out into the country, as far as radio is concerned the ABC is the principal source of information, and it does a wonderful job. It does a wonderful job with weather, with market reports, with information about what's happening around particular communities. So it's a very, very valuable service. But often it's the only one. Whilst I approve the efficiency—and, as you say, it's a 2c-in-a-dollar saving, which I think even I could save in my own household, and I'm sure the ABC will be able to do it, particularly under the new management—I am concerned that very often when there are cuts to the ABC, or very often when there aren't cuts to the ABC, you'll find that some of those in Ultimo who really don't know Australia, apart from three blocks from the Ultimo headquarters, don't quite understand the importance of the regional services of the ABC. I'm just after some sort of assurance—and I appreciate the ABC is an independent body—on that. That's my second question.</p><p>The third question: has any thought ever been given by the government to setting up, with independent budgets, not just ABC and SBS but ABC, SBS and, for want of a better term, 'ABC Regional', as a separate entity with a separate budget and separate management, which will concentrate on this vital service to many people who live outside the capital cities and ensure that it is always there? That's the third question. Has any thought ever been given to that? Is it something that the minister or his department might sometime have a look at, without diminishing services anywhere and leaving the ABC in its current form to continue doing the work it does—some of it good, most of it, I think, questionable, but let's not get into that; that's a matter of opinion. But the certainty of an ongoing service for regional Australia is something that exercises the minds of many people outside the capital cities.</p> <p class="speaker">Mitch Fifield</p><p>Thanks, Senator Macdonald. To your first question, as to whether any of the innovation fund that this legislation will allow ACMA to administer will be available to the ABC, the answer is that it won't be. The innovation fund is targeted essentially at private publishers in regional areas and small publishers. I should point out, though, that the ABC have, over the last year or so, identified further efficiencies, which demonstrates that that can be done, and the ABC have set up a content fund. Different parts of the ABC organisation can pitch innovative ideas to that content fund that the ABC have established. So there is that avenue there.</p><p>Through you, Chair: Senator Macdonald raises a very good point about the important role that the ABC plays in rural and regional Australia, which is why the government has legislation before the parliament to put into the ABC's act a specific reference to rural and regional Australia, which is something that people assume is already there. People assume that the ABC charter already has specific reference to an obligation to rural and regional Australia. It doesn't. We will be seeking to legislate that here, and I hope that will enjoy the support of all colleagues.</p><p>In the same bill, we also have a measure which would require the ABC to always have at least two board members from rural and regional Australia. That is a measure that we have already met, because I have appointed to the board of the ABC Georgie Somerset, who is a beef producer from Kingaroy, and Vanessa Guthrie—no relation to the MD—who is the chair of the Minerals Council of Australia. It's very important that we have that representation on the board. The board is the ultimate editorial and operational authority. So, to ensure that rural and regional Australia get the resources that they need through the ABC, that representation on the board is extremely important. That bill also contains a measure to establish an ABC rural and regional advisory committee, which the ABC would be required to consult if there were any decisions that they were taking that had a significant effect on rural and regional Australia. They are some of the safeguards that we are putting in place for rural and regional Australia.</p><p>Often, as I move around the community—and, I know, as Senator Macdonald moves around the community—while Australians have a wide range of views on the ABC, as they're entitled to do as taxpayers and consumers, I universally hear very positive things about ABC rural and regional radio. I think one of the reasons is that the ABC are close to the community. They live in the community. They get that constant feedback from the community. It's a good and important service that the ABC provide.</p><p>Coming to Senator Macdonald's third question on the ABC's structure and whether thought has been given to having a separate ABC rural and regional entity, it's not something that the government has looked at in terms of legislation. Under the current legislative framework, how they structure themselves is a matter for the ABC board. But I think that the measures in the bill that we have before the Senate to establish in the ABC Act a particular obligation for rural and regional Australia are important and will go some way towards those objectives, as will mandating that there be two people from rural and regional Australia on the board and establishing the ABC rural and regional advisory committee. Senator, I know that you will continue to put propositions forward, and I think, as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Rural and Regional Measures) Bill 2017 demonstrates, we are open to doing whatever we can to further reinforce the ABC's role in rural and regional Australia.</p> <p class="speaker">Deborah O'Neill</p><p>Thank you for your answers this morning, Senator Fifield. You indicated that you felt that the efficiency study from 2014 was quite effective at that point in time and, if I heard you correctly, you indicated that it was time for another efficiency review. One of the consequences of the efficiency review that was undertaken was that 800 staff have left the ABC in recent years. Do you concede that jobs will be lost as a result of the government's budget cuts of $83.7 million from the ABC?</p> <p class="speaker">Mitch Fifield</p><p>As I said in response to an earlier question, I can't and wouldn't seek to pre-empt the work of the review or the decisions that ABC management might take in the wake of the review and their own efforts. So I can't assist you beyond that.</p> <p class="speaker">Deborah O'Neill</p><p>Minister, it's not too much of a stretch to indicate, on the public record, that the result of your last efficiency cut efforts was very significant loss of jobs and loss of capacity. In your response to Senator Macdonald, you indicated that you were putting people on the board. The fact that people in particular positions make a very big difference to what an organisation can do is well known to you and I and every Australian who's interested in the ABC. We have a situation where the public broadcaster is now 800 jobs short of what it was when you arrived, despite your jobs and growth narrative. How can you possibly stand here in the chamber and pretend that a further cut, a further efficiency dividend—a cut of $83.7 million—will not drive further job losses at the ABC?</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|