Page 489 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 8 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
federal government. In closing I would like to thank all those who work as announcers, producers and behind the scene to deliver what the ABC does so well in Canberra.
MR MULCAHY (Molonglo) (4.55): When I hear motions like this I sometimes wonder whether I stood for election in the House of Representatives in October 2004. I think I am in the wrong place. What on earth the ACT Assembly has to do with the funding arrangements for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is beyond me. Whilst I know we can carry motions here about everything from Guantanamo Bay to the ABC and all points in between, I really am troubled at times that the Assembly devotes much of its efforts to these extraneous matters that are not central to the core of ACT government business, nor to the matters impacting on our constituents, who see us as their representatives on territory matters.
But, lest the record be left without an accurate picture, I will make a few comments in relation to the ABC. Ms Porter’s motion contains an inaccuracy. Paragraph (2) states that the ABC is currently underfunded. I would like to know in relation to what, in what areas and what her yardstick is, because I did not hear Ms Porter address that point in her remarks.
She also expressed the view that the ABC was the only organisation that could give an objective and unbiased perspective on matters. I doubt that there would be too many people in the ABC who would subscribe to the view that they are that holy. Plenty of commercial stations have taken partisan views. It cuts both ways. I note the rather savage campaign that was run by the Murdoch media against the Tasmanian premier after he received hospitality from Mr Packer. I think the ABC is not immune from people who choose to expound their own personal points of view in the presentation of news and current affairs. But I wonder why SBS does not get a guernsey here in terms of government-funded organisations that are able to provide objective points of view. I actually find the SBS news and current affairs to be generally quite balanced and reasonable.
But I want to state a few facts in relation to the ABC. At the start of the new funding triennium in 2003-04, the Australian government fulfilled its 2001 election commitment to actually maintain ABC funding in real terms. The final year of the current triennium is 2005-06. In 2005-06 the ABC’s total government funding will be $792.9 million. That is as large as any agency of the territory; I think the Treasurer will agree. The ABC will receive nearly $2.3 billion from the Australian government over the 2003-06 triennium. Interestingly, in the 2004-05 federal budget, the government went beyond the terms of that election commitment and provided additional further funding to the ABC of $4.2 million per year, ongoing and indexed. That was designed to assist the ABC in meeting the increasing costs of television program purchasing, which does in fact help the Australian industry.
In addition, in the 2004-05 budget the federal government continued the ABC’s regional and local program funding at a cost of $54.4 million over three years from 2005-06. The government has done this to provide the ABC with certainty in its planning for the range of radio, television and online services that have been funded under the RLP initiative. This is particularly the case in relation to the extensive additional ABC local radio services this program has funded, which I know Mr Quinlan will sorely miss after his period in office.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .