Preface to Chairman's Foreword:
This particular Inquiry has been difficult and different in two aspects. Firstly, as an investigation by a Victorian State Parliamentary Committee into a Commonwealth Government body and secondly, the potentially political nature of the Inquiry.
This political dimension came to the surface during the first weeks of the Inquiry with media reports attributed to the then leader of the State opposition, Mr John Brumby, as saying:
"the inquiry was an act of gross political hypocrisy by the Premier, and that the four Labor MPs in the nine member committee would produce their own report scathing in its criticisms of Kennett". The Australian, 20/7/98
It was therefore a tribute to the Parliamentary Committee process, as well as the serious issues investigated, that after months of hearings, meetings, and discussions by the Committee, all members were sufficiently concerned and disturbed by the evidence that they were united in their desire to bring these concerns to the attention of all Australians.
To this end, the Committee worked hard to achieve a unanimous position, so that these issues would not be lost in the smoke of any party political fire. This process culminated on the 12th May, 1999, by the unanimous adoption of the Report by all members of the Committee.
I believe this outcome of unanimously adopting the report was driven by the Committee's concern over the ABC and SBS activity, and the desire by all members of the Committee to keep the focus on these issues, rather than cloud them with Party politics.
It is therefore with regret that I have to report, after the unanimous adoption of the Committee's Report, that two minority reports have been received and are therefore included in these documents.
These minority reports deal with questions that some members have perceived as additional to or not adequately covered by the unanimously adopted Report.
In the case of Labor's minority report, by three of the four Labor Party members of the Committee, it simply provides the Labor Party's foreshadowed "scathing attack on the Premier" signaled by Mr Brumby at the outset of the Inquiry. In addition, this minority report by the three Labor members, canvasses issues which are clearly outside the Committee's Terms of Reference, and as such, were never raised in any substantive fashion by them in the Committee deliberations.
In commenting on these minority reports, I would like to clearly note that neither dissents from, nor disagrees with any of the evidence and findings of the Committee's Report, but rather they raise new and different questions.
I am sure that I speak for all members of the Committee, in clearly stating that we do not want this last minute politicking to distract in any way from the very substantive evidence and findings presented in this Report, which we all believe must be addressed.
The above Preface to the Chairman's foreword was added following receipt of the two minority reports.
An investigation and report by a Victorian State Parliamentary Committee into a Commonwealth Government body is unusual and has taken the Economic Development Committee into uncharted territory in many ways.
The Victorian Parliament clearly has no jurisdiction over the ABC and SBS and as such the considerable powers that the Committee would normally have, for example to subpoena witnesses, records and other information, were not available to it in this Inquiry. As a consequence, the Committee had to rely on the good will and co-operation of the parties in the conduct of its investigation, and as this Report notes, although the parties generally co-operated, it was not always as full and frank as the Committee would have wished.
Another area where the Inquiry breaks new ground is in this Report itself. Normally a Committee reports to and makes recommendations to the Victorian Parliament for action by the Victorian Government. But as the Victorian Parliament and Victorian Government have no jurisdiction over the ABC and SBS, this normal procedure is inappropriate.
This Report is therefore structured more around "Findings" by the Committee rather than recommendations. These Findings are more a statement in the Public Interest from the Committee and addressed to the public, rather than recommendations to the Victorian Government.
The Committee believes and hopes that the evidence and common-sense behind these Findings will bring about an environment for change, both within the ABC and SBS, as well as the community. This environment for change will flow through to the Commonwealth Government which does have jurisdiction over these bodies.
The Committee has made a small number of recommendations directed at the Victorian Government, and where the Committee's concern over a particular Finding has been very strong, a recommendation has on occasions been made on that issue. These later recommendations are made to indicate to the ABC, the SBS and the Commonwealth Government the type of action that the Committee sees as an appropriate response to a Finding.
When the Terms of Reference was issued to the Committee in June last year, there was a distinct possibility that the Inquiry and its outcome had the potential to be politically driven. I am therefore very pleased to report that the Members of this all-party Committee, regardless of their personal views and opinions, have been sufficiently concerned by the evidence put to the Committee, that we resolved to jointly identify, and bring our concerns to the attention of the Australian and Victorian public. By doing this, the Committee aims to stimulate the type of action it believes is essential to ensure the successful continuation of these two important National Institutions.
A summary of the Committee's key findings is contained in Part One of this Report. Detailed analysis of key issues is provided in Part Two under specific chapters.
The issue that triggered this Inquiry were reports of the heavily centralised nature of ABC resources in Sydney. Unfortunately the Inquiry has found this to be true.
Examples of centralisation are found in:-
· program production, particularly news and current affairs, which is predominantly Sydney based, reflecting a Sydney view of Australia, by Sydney presenters and commentators;
· decision making, with most important programming and resources allocation being Sydney based and biased; and
· accommodation and digital technology strategies.
This over-concentration of resources and decision making in one location is not a desirable outcome for a national broadcaster funded by the taxpayers. It is also in conflict with a priority of government-funded national broadcasting to provide local programming.
The Committee has been heartened by the ABC's public rejection of centralism and corresponding support of what it terms `Federalism'. However the Committee found time and again that the facts did not match the rhetoric. The Committee found that the inertia from many years of centralism seems to be the driving force despite the intentions and public pronouncements to the contrary.
Perhaps the most blatant manifestation of actions speaking louder than words, is the ABC's commitment to build a new $122 million multi-storey office and digitally equipped production complex in central Sydney to provide permanent and long term accommodation for all of its temporarily housed Sydney personnel and production resources.
Having locked in its Sydney accommodation and digital conversion strategy by this decision, the ABC is about to commence a scoping study to examine the future of its Melbourne facilities. However, even at this early stage, the Committee has evidence that the Ripponlea production facility will not be equipped for High Definition Digital TV (HDDTV), making Sydney the only non-news and current affairs centre with this important new facility.
Another example was the total and instant dismissal of the Committee's Discussion Paper highlighting the opportunities afforded to the ABC by the relocation of some of its production facilities to the new digital and multi-media complex being proposed in the Melbourne Docklands. This rejection was in favour of the new Sydney complex which permanently locates existing resources in Sydney.
The Committee believes that Australians outside of Sydney will not believe the ABC's pronouncements on decentralisation unless it makes a firm commitment to relocate a significant amount of its Sydney staff and resources to other States and announces a corresponding cut back in its Sydney developments.
The Committee has found that in the absence of any firm commitment to move resources out of Sydney, and in the face of firm commitments to enhance Sydney's resources, then all the good intentions on decentralisation will come to nothing.
