It’s time to privatise the ABC

We all support a clash of ideas and opinions. Robust democracies survive best in an atmosphere where rigorous debate takes place on issues important, or even unimportant, to society and its individuals. But the balance is unfairly skewed where the national broadcaster, secured by a constant flow of ever-increasing tax revenues, takes a stance that upholds one point of view, and not others. Moreover, no debate is taking place at the ABC. Instead, as the post-Durkin documentary panel discussion shows us, debate against left-wing orthodoxy is shut down.

So what is it worth to the taxpayer?

The funding that the ABC receives is not insubstantial. In a press release dated October 2005, the Minister for Communications, Senator Helen Coonan, outlined that the ABC’s total government funding for 2005-06 would be $792.1 million. This was up on the $522.24 million it received in 1995-96. The ABC was budgeted to receive nearly $2.3 billion in government funding over 2003-06 period. The Minister even boasted “The ABC’s current funding levels exceed those under the Labor government prior to the 1996 election”.

But taxpayer funding of the ABC is entirely unnecessary. It unfairly accords the ABC a monopoly over certain types of shows, locking commercial stations out of the competition. With its stable stream of taxpayer income, it is virtually impossible for competitors to edge into the market that the ABC has dug out for itself. The ABC, however, would be entirely capable of continuing to exist on advertising revenue alone. When one considers the nature of ABC audiences, the argument against government funding is strengthened.

First, the ABC attracts a substantial audience share. In Week 28, the OzTam Ratings Report (PDF 24KB) shows that for the five capital cities (Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and Brisbane), the ABC had an audience share of 13.4 per cent. This was not far behind Seven (23.3 per cent), Nine (22.4 per cent) and Ten (17.1 per cent). The ABC was miles ahead of its subsidised sister, the SBS, with only 5.0 per cent of the audience share.

Given the huge chunk of the viewing audience the ABC reaches, why are taxpayer dollars needed at all to fund the national broadcaster? If the SBS, with only a 5 per cent share of the audience, can manage to raise revenue by advertising, why do we insist on stopping the ABC doing the same?

Second, the type of programming is geared towards an educated, older, usually wealthier, audience. In other words, taxpayer dollars are siphoned off to fund television programs for the educated, elite and wealthy in our society, at the expense of all taxpayers. This is an audience that is completely capable of paying for the programs itself. Or alternatively, it can endure the advertisements that could pay for free-to-air programs.

But of real importance is the quality of the educated ABC audience: advertisers would be dying to promote their products on the ABC. Just as we have witnessed credit card companies, expensive European car companies and international hotel chains advertising on the SBS because of its especially upwardly mobile, well-moneyed audience, the same type of advertisers see the ABC as a premier marketing vehicle. The ABC would be capable of being self-sufficient on advertising revenues.

Opponents of privatising the ABC argue that the “quality” programming the ABC creates could not be maintained if the ABC were forced to seek revenue from advertising.

But this is just not true. The ratings themselves show the ABC with its current programming is able to achieve a substantial share of the audience. It would still take the risks to create new programs and invest in Australian drama or documentaries, if that is what the viewing public continued to demand.

So what should we do? We have a national broadcaster that is the mouthpiece of the left, for which all taxpayers, left and right, are forced to foot the bill.

There is only one thing we can do: it is time to privatise the ABC.