Wednesday, 2 August 2023

Motions

SBS headquarters

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (17:02): I am pleased to move notice of motion 74:

That this house:

(1) notes:

(a) the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) is one of two government-funded national broadcasters, both of which are headquartered in Sydney;

(b) that according to the SBS report 2021–22, of the 1269 SBS staff 1040, or 82 per cent, were based in New South Wales while only 181, or 14 per cent, were based in Victoria;

(2) recognises:

(a) that Victoria has the highest proportion of population born overseas of any state or territory;

(b) that Melbourne’s population is increasing faster than Sydney’s and becoming ever more multicultural in composition;

(3) expresses concern that the SBS report 2021–22 and the federal Minister for Communications news release of 27 April 2023 indicate a feasibility study on the possible relocation of SBS headquarters from Artarmon to Western Sydney;

(4) calls on the Andrews Labor government to advocate:

(a) to the federal Albanese government to reverse their plan to relocate the SBS headquarters to Western Sydney; and

(b) for a Melbourne-based SBS headquarters and to facilitate the process of setting up a Melbourne location.

I am going to note that this contribution will be brief – I intend to finish in about 12 minutes – and others will make contributions at another sitting week opportunity. I am a supporter of SBS, and I want to indicate that I think it performs an important role in a multicultural society. Our community in Victoria is deeply multicultural. Whichever group you like to look at, the numbers have been growing over the recent period, and I think that SBS should reflect the diversity of Australia.

It is important to note that there are two government-funded national broadcasters. The ABC is a behemoth; it is a huge organisation with more than $1.1 billion in annual spending. The SBS’s spending is also significant, and the spending numbers as indicated in the annual report show that $486 million was the 2021–22 spend, comprising $310 million of Commonwealth money, $19.5 million in expenses not requiring an appropriation and $156.83 million in money that was from its own source revenue – advertising, in the case of the SBS.

The government through its recent budgets has indicated the growth pattern for both the ABC and SBS over the next four years. By 2026–27 the SBS will be a body that has $532.2 million in annual spending, comprising $364.82 million in government grants and $167.39 million in own-source revenue – that is the estimated spending of the SBS. SBS has obviously got radio. It has got the television networks. It has got very important links overseas. It has got those very important radio communications that pick up in particular the different multicultural groups in our community, and I pay tribute to the work of those broadcasters and their ability to maintain contact with their communities. The television networks pick up many of the multicultural news services from overseas and indeed a range of shows, including importantly on the SBS On Demand services. ABC’s on-demand services, I note, now require you to put in your email details, making it less accessible, but I pay tribute to the fact that SBS has chosen not to do that. I think that is actually an important distinction. I am just laying out the terrain here, noting that the old radio service audiences are actually less than they were, but importantly, the on-demand services are greater.

I want to be quite clear here: Victorians pay about 25 per cent of the taxes in the country, and in terms of government-funded national broadcasters we get less than our share of money back – far, far less. In the case of the ABC, the disparity is huge – 50 per cent of the staff are in Sydney. In the case of SBS, 82 per cent of the staff are in Sydney and New South Wales. In the case of SBS, 14 per cent of the staff are in Victoria.

Members interjecting.

David DAVIS: I am not defending Abbott or Morrison – any of that. I am actually a Victorian, and I am interested that we should get a fair share of these things. This is jobs, this is industry, this is producers, this is those who are able to commission shows and those who are able to produce shows. This is a whole sector, a whole industry, and it is hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars a year that we are being ripped off by government-funded national broadcasters. We pay 25 per cent of the tax and we get far less of the money back here to spend on our industry, our culture, our services, our producers, our TV people and our radio people. It goes on and on, including with networks and links into our important multicultural communities. One of my colleagues in the chamber asked, ‘Why are you interested in this?’ And I said, ‘Because it’s jobs. It’s links to the multicultural communities. It’s reflecting the diversity of our society.’ I think the SBS has got a very important role, and I think it should be based here.

I note that at Federation Square they have recently cut a floor. They are actually contracting here, and at the same time the federal minister and the federal government are kicking around the idea of moving the SBS from Artarmon, in central Sydney, out to somewhere in western Sydney. Now, I bear no ill will to western Sydney. I say, ‘Knock your socks off. Have a good time.’ But I say that Victoria and Melbourne are a better alternative for the new SBS headquarters. I do not actually know anyone in the chamber who would disagree with my central contention. We pay the taxes. We want a fair share. This is about industry, it is about jobs, it is about multicultural communities. You have already got one government-funded national broadcaster in Sydney, and we want the other one. I reckon actually the Labor people, when I have talked about this, mostly fundamentally agree. They might point at this or point at that, but do they actually disagree that we should have more producers in Melbourne, more multicultural links in broadcasting in Melbourne? They all say yes, and so do most of the crossbench. I think that is for good reason – because it is actually our culture. Melbourne is now the biggest city in the country. Victoria is the most multicultural state. Why on earth would you not put the main multicultural broadcaster in Victoria? Why would you move it to a spot in Sydney, to a different location? The costs of moving – let us avoid that. If the Victorian government can do something to help – let us first of all send a signal, which is a non-partisan signal, a bipartisan signal, to Sydney, to Canberra, that we would be happy to host it here and we would be happy in a bipartisan way to actually do the work to make it happen.

If the government needed to sign planning instruments to put a new headquarters here, I do not reckon there is a lot of cost in that. If the government was to say, ‘We are going to do some sort of deal’ or whatever, that would have the support of the opposition. Let us think about how we can do this and get a better outcome and make sure that more of that long-term spending is pumped into the state of Victoria for our multicultural groups, whether they are the Greek community, the Italian community or the African communities – I could go on. All of us in this chamber understand what I am talking about here. If we can have a better link, that is a strong point for all of us. I am not trying to be partisan here; I am trying to do the opposite. I am trying to say we are Victorians, all of us, first. Let us work on something like this together. Let us make sure that the multicultural communities are better reflected. Let us make sure that we do this as Victorians first, not missing the point that multicultural communities are actually building the strength of our state. Trung, you may say something about this, but certainly the Vietnamese community is very strong in this state. The Chinese community is very strong in this state. The Indian community is very strong. Why would we not draw on those links? Why would we not make sure that Victoria is properly represented here?

I have sent an unrequested submission to the relocation committee that has been put out, headed by Mike Mrdak AO. He is the chair of the SBS Relocation Feasibility Study Steering Committee, which has been put out by the federal minister. I welcome his work, but I do not want him to just look at western Sydney as an option. I want him to look in Victoria. Already Dandenong and Monash have said they would work with the government to do this. The city of Dandenong and the City of Monash, which are highly multicultural areas, have indicated that they would welcome the presence of SBS in Victoria, and I know that there are some northern suburbs that would also want some involvement or some role. I seriously think if we as a state turn our mind to this, we can actually put some constructive pressure on the federal government and say, ‘Let’s work on this. Let’s get a fair outcome.’ Victoria is the most multicultural state and Melbourne is the largest and fast becoming the most multicultural city in the country – why would we not have our national multicultural broadcaster here and build the jobs and industries and links that come with that? This is also about projecting Victoria internationally. There are actually two government-funded national broadcasters – you just cannot have both of them in Sydney. It is an absolute outrage. Again, this is not partisan; this is pointing the finger at my old Liberal colleagues but also pointing the finger at the Labor Party nationally too. We want our share here. We pay the taxes. We have got the multicultural community and all the advantages that brings, and more than that, it is the jobs and it is the links to the production sector, the television sector and the new media – all of that. That is what we should be focused on. We have got to look to industries in the future, and here is one where there is all of that government spending coming.

I looked at some rule-of-thumb figures on multipliers, and about 1.8 is the sort of multiplier that you can use as a rule of thumb. Think about the money that comes out of the state and then what is injected in spending. You obviously would not move everyone out of Sydney, because there is a genuine broadcasting need up there, but if you moved $200 million or $300 million out of Sydney into jobs here and decision-making and headquarters staff here, what would that mean? You can do the multiplication yourself: $300 million or $200 million annually moved to Melbourne with a multiplier of 1.8. This is not a one-off; this is annual in perpetuity. Why on earth would we not be doing that? I urge people to look at this sensibly and to look at this in a non-partisan way and to say, ‘How can we advance things?’ I urge you to support the motion.

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.