Calls for advertising to be screened on the ABC to pay for more local drama content has been met with strong opposition.
ACT Liberal Senator Gary Humphries says advertising on the ABC may help alleviate the lack of Australian drama content.
At Senate Estimates this year it was established that the ABC produced just three hours of new Australian TV drama last financial year—down from 83 hours in the 2000–01 financial year.
‘I believe there is a case for more Government funding of ABC drama,’ says Senator Humphries. ‘But that the ABC should meet the interests of taxpayers half-way by allowing advertising to fund drama production,’ he said.
Two local members of FABC have responded to Gary’s comments in letters to The Canberra Times during November:
Senator Gary Humphries’ comments (CT, November 11, p6) that advertising on the ABC could help address the decline in its local drama production and ‘meet the interests of taxpayers half-way’ are disappointing.
What the senator said on radio was 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 began in the mid-1980s under the then Labor government.
Comparatively, the ABC’s funding now ranks 17 out of 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.
Senator Humphries also states that advertising on SBS has not compromised its ability to fulfil its charter and that ‘after all, the ABC already promotes its own products between programs’.
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.
Margaret O’Connor, Spokesperson, Friends of the ABC, Cook
Before the last election, Senator Humphries said publicly that he would pursue more government funding for the ABC.
Did he also raise publicly this commercial advertising proposal? A publicly funded broadcaster which is independent of both government and commercial interests plays a critical role in a functioning democracy.’
Monica Pflaum, Curtin
By Brian Hill, member of FABC (ACT)
Friends will have noted that, yet again, advertising on the ABC has emerged as an issue.
On this occasion the initiative has been taken by Senator Gary Humphries who by way of media release and radio interviews, has argued that advertising should be allowed on the ABC as a means of funding drama production, thereby meeting the interests of taxpayers half-way. His specific proposal envisages that a fixed percentage of the proceeds from the advertising revenue would be put into a ‘drama fund’, additionally a minimum local drama content should be considered for the ABC. Senator Humphries went on to note ‘the ABC doesn’t have a minimum Australian content quota while the commercial broadcasters do—ironic considering the ABC is supposed to be the National broadcaster!’
Senator Humphries has recently assumed the position of Secretary of the Coalition Committee that is responsible for considering, and advising on the ABC. Accordingly, his initiative on the advertising issue needs to be taken seriously. As does also the timing, given that the Government has before it the ABC’s Triennium Funding 2006–09 proposal. The Government’s ABC Funding Adequacy and Efficiency Review is also pending. Note the subtle drafting in the Terms of Reference of this latter review to the effect that ‘the Consultancy will be requested to assess and provide advice on whether there are practicable cost efficiencies which would allow funding to be made available for priority ABC initiatives.’—so much for the need for additional new Government funding for local drama.
Friends of the ABC recently met with Senator Humphries as part of regular contact with politicians. The opportunity was taken to pursue the advertising issue with the Senator. He commented that he had raised this issue as a means of stimulating public debate. Senator Humphries clearly accepts the case for more local drama production by the ABC and is of the view that realising further efficiency gains will not of themselves provide sufficient funds to fill that need. Equally, however he left the clear impression that he doubted whether the taxpayers-at-large would be sufficiently persuaded as to provide the full measure of funds required. Enter the need to accommodate advertising.
As regards the principle of allowing advertising on the ABC, Senator Humphries came across as clearly convinced that there was a case for it. He indicated that he believed the objections to advertising were over-drawn and that it could be regulated much more discreetly on the ABC, as distinct from the commercial broadcasters who ‘depended’ on advertising. He had no difficulty with questions raised about conflicts of interest or even an inclination to a form of self censorship arguing that these should prove ‘manageable’ e.g. by rejecting any further advertising from say an advertiser who could be seen as compromising the ABC’s integrity etc. Senator Humphries also sought to make much of the fact that SBS accepted advertising without apparently putting its charter at risk: in any event the ABC advertised its own wares.
In discussing the issue with Senator Humphries the Friends drew on the following points:
Delete Hardie; substitute any powerful company with a large ABC advertising contract and the wish to ‘tailor’ a critical view of the company formed by the ABC as a result of responsible investigative journalism.
Note the difficulty that the ABC itself has had with its own ABC Enterprises and how it had to distance itself from one of its most popular children’s television shows if it were to maintain integrity in the eyes of its viewers, of its non-commercial charter. The experience some 10 years ago involving Horizon Films – Export Australia also provides some interesting insights into editorial intent.
Yes, the ABC does advertise its own wares and this can be ‘painful’ at times but this does not involve any conflict of interest and at least the resultant revenue helps to relieve in small measure the reduction of funding over the years by Governments of both persuasions.
The Friends support of such advertising is conditional, in that ABC Enterprises should not influence program scheduling decisions, or program content in any way.
As for advertising on SBS this is certainly better managed in the sense that there is no program interruption. However, if Errol Simper is to be believed (see The Australian, 28th October 2004) there was a strong push at board level for program interruption. (Another case of thin edge of the wedge?) This reportedly did not succeed. The way in which SBS conducts itself can be seen as somewhat different from that of the ABC. It produces some fine documentaries and its Insight program, canvassing public policy issues, is a model for excellent television. Nevertheless, generally it does not engage in ‘public conscience’ type programs to quite the same extent as the ABC—particularly in areas where commercial interests/potential commercial advertisers, or governments for that matter, could be ‘exposed’. In that sense, the possibility of conflict of interest can be seen as less of an issue.
In conclusion, Friends should be aware that a clear program has been launched to soften up various key constituencies on the issue of advertising on the ABC (sometimes more euphemistically described as ‘sponsorship’).
The issues involved are quite complex, in terms of both principle and practice. It is said that some strong supporters of the ABC have declared themselves as capable of accommodating such a move. It has also been reported that even some ABC staff could support such a move.
We could, therefore, be in for an ‘interesting’ exchange. The Friends, for its part, has steadfastly resisted any such development. If this position is to be maintained, then there needs to be some clear thinking and well directed counter action.