By the Hon James Spigelman AC QC, Chairman of the ABC – Address to Ripe@2012
Conference
THE digital revolution has undermined the business model of much traditional
media. Its effects are exemplified in recent dramatic announcements by Australia’s
two largest print media groups.
Broadcasters and pay-TV also face an uncertain future.
In such a context, we are now seeing more frequent expressions of anxiety about
public broadcasters competing with commercial interests. There is nothing new
about this. Public broadcasters have always had an adverse impact on such interests.
In 1933, when the ABC began an independent news service, the chief executive of one
of our major media groups was so concerned with the impact such a service could
have on his company’s print and commercial radio operations he called for a
reduction in the ABC’s revenue. That was Keith Murdoch, Rupert’s father. Some
things change very little over the decades.
It is perfectly understandable that commercial broadcasters and, in a converged
world, other media, should suggest the ABC refrain from providing services that are,
or might be, provided on a commercial basis. The first thing to say about such
arguments is that there has never been a time when the ABC was simply a market-
failure broadcaster, obliged to fill gaps in the commercial offering.
The ABC’s obligations are, and have always been, defined positively, not negatively.
Under current legislation, the ABC is directed to provide “comprehensive
broadcasting services” and to accept a “responsibility … to provide a balance between
broadcasting programs of wide appeal and specialised broadcasting programs”.
Unquestionably, a public broadcaster must program for minority audiences in a way
that commercial free-to-air broadcasters would never do.
Perhaps no better example exists than the ABC’s coverage of the Paralympics, with
which, it appears, advertisers would prefer to avoid any association – despite the
triumph of the human spirit that is continually on display.
However, the ABC must offer services to the community as a whole. One of the ABC’s
key roles is to ensure that all Australians have access to quality media services,
perhaps particularly reliable news and information about international, national,
regional and local matters.
We are seeing only the beginning of the impact of technological change on media.
New business models are being tried. While there are some confident assertions
about the prospects for these models, the truth is that no one knows where this is
going.
In such a context, the capacity of public broadcasters to ensure all Australians receive
a quality service with a breadth of content on all major platforms has become more
important than ever.
There is no public debate in Australia that seriously questions the continuation of
the ABC’s traditional services. There is, however, some limited commentary about its
expansion into online and mobile platform delivery. Computers, smartphones and
tablets are now so ubiquitous that delivery of a program, or cognate material, to such
devices is a form of broadcasting, in the natural meaning of the term. These
platforms are so available that they are becoming the same as traditional radio or
television sets.
Any suggestion that such delivery should be restricted because it is new is as dubious
as an argument would have been that radio programs should not be delivered to
transistor radios because they did not exist when radio broadcasting began.
That is not to say that the ABC’s determination to interact with its audiences in the
manner they prefer does not have adverse commercial consequences on existing or
potential service providers. It has always had such effects: whether use of public
funds constitutes competition that could be regarded as unfair is a matter on which
people can differ.
However, broadcasting encompasses delivery of programs to all platforms capable of
receiving them. This is how the ABC’s audiences see it and the ABC continues each
day to meet that public expectation.
One issue that has arisen in the present Australian debate is whether the public
broadcasters should be subject to exactly the same regime as that applicable to
commercial broadcasters. This has never been the case. Our entire 80-year history
has been based on ensuring that the ABC cannot be subject to pressure from its sole
shareholder.
One of the key recommendations of the Convergence Review is the establishment of
a new industry-led regulator to oversee journalistic standards on all platforms. The
review recommends that the ABC and SBS would not be subject to this new
regulator. This recommendation rejects the proposal of the prior report of the
Finkelstein inquiry for a statutory regulator. It was disappointing that this prior
inquiry, on which the Convergence Review was asked to report, had recommended
the ABC should be subject to the media standards regulator which that inquiry
proposed. This is particularly so because, when the earlier inquiry had sought the
assistance of the ABC, it expressly stated in writing that it was not investigating the
standards or behaviour of the ABC.
The rejection by the Convergence Review of the earlier proposal is consistent with a
similar rejection by the Australian Law Reform Commission. Any appeal to a so-
called “level playing field” with respect to media regulation, by subjecting the ABC to
the same regulation as is applicable to commercial broadcasters, is fundamentally
misconceived. The government response to these two reports is still awaited.
Sydney, September 5, 2012 – http://about.abc.net.au/speeches
Full text of the speech here: