Chapter 3

Key issues

Introduction

3.1        The committee received submissions from a wide range of interested parties: individuals, past and present employees of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), television production bodies, community organisations, peak groups, the Tasmanian government and the ABC.[1]

3.2        Although the committee had wide-ranging terms of reference to inquire into the commitment of the ABC to reflecting and representing regional Australia, the ABC's presence in Tasmania and Western Australia was a recurring point of discussion.

3.3        This chapter will firstly consider the overarching issues of the ABC's ability to meet its charter obligations in representing regional Australia and the trend towards centralising television production in Sydney and Melbourne. The chapter then examines issues associated with the effects of the closure of the Perth production unit and with the announced closure of the Hobart production unit.

The ABC's responsibility to reflect and represent regional diversity

3.4        The ABC Charter requires that, as one of its functions, the ABC provide within Australia innovative and comprehensive broadcasting services of a high standard as part of the Australian broadcasting system.[2] This includes:

...broadcasting programs that contribute to a sense of national identity and inform and entertain, and reflect the cultural diversity of, the Australian community...[3]

3.5        The committee received evidence from a number of academics highlighting the importance of regional identities in shaping the overarching national identity. For example, Professor Jeff Malpas from the University of Tasmania explained that:

Identity, including national identity, is always based in the regional and the local, at the same time as regional identity and difference is essential to the formation of national identity.[4]

3.6        Furthermore, Professor Malpas highlighted the role of contemporary media in creating national identity:

In contemporary societies, the media and communications industries play a crucial role in reinforcing and maintaining regional identity, just as they also contribute to the formation and maintenance of regional communities, and in so doing contribute to identity and community at the national level.

In a world in which the media and information industries are increasingly driven by a need for differentiated content, regional diversity has a key role to play in both supporting new and innovative production, and in providing sources of distinctive content.[5]

3.7        The Communications Law Centre (CLC) at the University of Technology Sydney advised the committee that 'the provision of local content is essential for participatory democracy in regional communities'.[6] According to the CLC, radio and television remain the most immediate (and hence effective) media to disseminate information in dispersed regional communities.[7]  The CLC recognised that the 'ABC has a role to play in correcting market failure in local content production'.[8] The CLC therefore argued against the closure of the Hobart production unit:

In spite of the challenges faced by the ABC, the CLC does not support the total closure of the Tasmanian production unit. The maintenance of internal production facilities allows the ABC to have a greater local presence in each state, which in turn, allows more thorough coverage of matters of local significance.[9]

3.8        It was suggested to the committee that closure of ABC production units means the ABC is failing to meet its charter obligations.[10] In particular, the closure of production units in Perth and Hobart led submitters to question whether the ABC has the capacity to adequately reflect Australia's cultural diversity in the absence of dedicated production units in these states.[11] When asked if the ABC is currently failing to meet its charter obligations, Professor Malpas stated:

If you want me to be honest, yes. I think it is also missing opportunities for itself. In that respect I think with this question about economics, about how much money the ABC has to put into these sorts of things, there are different sorts of efficiencies and economies that you can assess against one another. I think one of the things that has been missed here is that maybe, if you really focus on developing a stronger brand that is Australian and reflects Australia's regionality, if you start to draw on the resources you have in the regions you can start projecting a different sense of brand and identity, in the way that the BBC does. Maybe that might actually be a more viable option financially and economically than centralising production and losing the capacity to develop distinctive content—which is what I think will happen and what I think has been happening—and relying increasingly on other people giving you distinctive content.

I also think that is likely to have unfortunate consequences elsewhere in terms of the way in which we think about Australia, and so on. So there is a bigger picture there. I think that is a really important point to bear in mind. What we are actually talking about is how you generate distinctive content, and I do not think you do that by simply centralising in one place your production facilities and decision making.[12]

3.9        Other submitters and witnesses were similarly concerned. The Media, Entertainment and the Arts Alliance (MEAA) argued that funding cuts and centralisation of the ABC made it increasingly difficult for ABC employees to uphold the charter obligations.[13] With specific reference to the proposed closure of the Hobart production unit, the Federal Member for Denison, Mr Andrew Wilkie MP, submitted that:

The ABC charter clearly states the national public broadcaster must serve all regions of Australia. Closing down TV production in Tasmania would be contrary to this charter and the ABC must reverse its apparent decision and guarantee internal television production in Tasmania.[14]

3.10      The Tasmanian Minster for Community Development, the Hon Cassy O'Connor, echoed these sentiments stating that 'this move is short-sighted and contrary to the ABC's Charter to serve rural and regional Australia'[15] while Wide Angle Tasmania was concerned that:

...the proposal is a further reduction in the ABC's capacity to meet its charter obligation to contribute to a sense of national identity and to reflect the cultural diversity of the Australian community.[16]

3.11      However, the ABC argued that it is meeting its charter obligations.[17] At the public hearing in Hobart, Mr Mark Scott, Managing Director of the ABC stated:

In a convergent world, the ABC, like all media organisations, must adapt to remain relevant. To view the corporation through one prism and one platform is to misconstrue its charter obligations, to undervalue its service as a whole and to understate its impact and its effectiveness in informing, entertaining and educating Australians. The charter demands the ABC provide programming of specialist interest and wide appeal, and which reflect the cultural diversity of the Australian community. I believe we are fulfilling this brief.

I think it is very important to understand that the charter does not go as far as to stipulate how we should meet that goal. Instead, the ABC is entrusted with the responsibility to deliver whilst managing its resources as efficiently as possible. This is an obligation we take very seriously, and it is central to the business that we do. The responsibility ultimately rests with the ABC board, accountable to the parliament through our own act. The board is acutely aware of the need to balance the various obligations set out in the act, including cultural diversity and sound financial management.[18]

3.12      The ABC stressed that 'the ABC's commitment to regional audiences' should be assessed in:

...the context in which the Corporation provides its services. The Committee should also consider the range of local, regional and national services offered by the ABC across its various platforms.[19]

3.13      The range of local and regional services offered by the ABC include ABC Local Radio, ABC Rural, ABC Open, news coverage, emergency broadcasting, Heywire and the triple j One Night Stand concerts.[20]

3.14      The ABC further remarked that 'the Charter of the ABC does not require it to maintain an internal production capacity in every state and territory'.[21] According to the ABC:

The requirement, as stated in the ABC Act, is to provide comprehensive broadcasting services which contribute to a sense of national identity and that inform, entertain and reflect the cultural diversity of the Australian community. In providing those services, the ABC must also provide a balance between programs that are specialised and programs of wide appeal.[22]

3.15      The ABC further contended that it is committed to maintaining its representation of regional Australia:

The number of programs commissioned from outside New South Wales and Victoria has remained steady over the last five years and increased in 2011–12. Since 2007–08, the ABC has maintained an average production output in the states outside New South Wales and Victoria, of 48 commissions per year. In 2011–12 the ABC commissioned 57 productions in states other than NSW and Victoria.[23]

Committee comment

3.16      The requirement that the ABC broadcast programs that 'contribute to a sense of national identity and inform and entertain, and reflect the cultural diversity of, the Australian community' is a key tenet of the ABC Charter. The committee is aware that whilst the charter places an obligation on the ABC to reflect the cultural diversity of Australia, which would encompass the diversity of our states and regions, it does not stipulate how the ABC should achieve this.

3.17      The committee acknowledges there are many different ways in which the ABC can—and does—go about reflecting cultural and regional diversity. The committee believes the comments it made in its 2011 report on Recent ABC programming decisions continue to be relevant: as an independent national broadcaster, the ABC has the right to produce programs it believes will meet its charter obligations and that editorial decisions are the responsibility of ABC management.[24] However, the ABC is not a business but a publicly-funded statutory authority and its responsibilities are not those of a commercial broadcaster.[25] Therefore, the ABC must continue to uphold its charter responsibilities, including that to reflect the cultural and regional diversity of the Australian community.

3.18      Without prescribing how the ABC reflects Australia's cultural diversity, the committee is of the view that the ABC Charter should be amended to ensure that, in a new convergent landscape, the ABC is producing content across platforms that reflects regional diversity.

Recommendation 1

3.19      The committee recommends that the ABC Charter should be amended in order to ensure that, given the new convergent landscape, the ABC is producing content across all platforms that reflects regional diversity. Such content should be responsive to new and emerging target audiences, including audiences of regional difference.

3.20      The committee believes that the ABC should provide as much information as possible to maximise the capacity of regional Australia is to produce content. To this end, the committee recommends that the ABC regularly conduct consultation with regional stakeholders in the film and television industry to enhance the mutual understanding of ABC production, planning, production priorities and regional capacity.

Recommendation 2

3.21      The committee recommends that the ABC:

• conducts an annual program of consultation with regional stakeholders in the film and television industry so that they gain a mutual understanding of ABC production, planning, production priorities and the capacity of regional Australia to produce content; and
• publish the outcomes of this consultation.

3.22      As evidenced by two inquiries in three years, the Senate is agitated to ensure charter obligations are met and the ABC should fully expect its commitments regarding continued production outside Sydney or Melbourne to be monitored and a more interventionist approach to be recommended in future if these commitments are not honoured.

Centralisation of production in Sydney and Melbourne

3.23      Related to the ABC's responsibility to reflect and represent regional diversity, numerous submitters raised concerns about the apparent trend of centralising ABC television production in Sydney and Melbourne.[26] The proposed closure of the ABC production unit in Hobart, combined with the previous closures of production units in Adelaide and Perth, was cited as evidence of this centralisation to Australia's two largest cities.[27]

3.24      For example, Mr Jim Mashberg commented:

In the last few years we have seen a dramatic reduction in programs being produced within the ABC at centres other than Sydney and Melbourne. This is in addition to the increase in the number of programs being produced outside the ABC...[28]

3.25      Another submitter claimed that:

The removal of local television production from BAPH [s]tates will not only mean that what the viewer sees is Sydney [c]entric, it will also deny the casual staff the very training they need, local production houses will lose a valuable resource and above all the viewing public will not see what they have come to expect and appreciate—their own state programs and identities.[29]

3.26      Some submitters feared that centralisation of ABC activities in Sydney and Melbourne would lead to a lack of diversity in content and over-representation of metropolitan culture on the ABC.[30]

3.27      Wide Angle Tasmania opined that:

...the centralisation of television production in Sydney—and to a lesser extent in Melbourne—has had a dramatic effect on the ABC's ability to reflect national identity and diversity. However it is not simply a matter of ABC in[-]house production being centralised in Sydney and Melbourne. Perhaps more significant is the ABC's policy of increasingly outsourcing production to independent production companies. This has reduced in-house production opportunities, replacing ABC made and funded programs with production made by independent producers. These are far less likely to be produced by program-makers in regional Australia than by those in Sydney and Melbourne.[31]

3.28      The South Hobart Progress Association similarly remarked that:

Centralisation of any organisation, but particularly government-owned or run ones, can have the [e]ffect of narrowing the focus and becoming unrepresentative and irrelevant, in the ABC's case to the cultural experiences of the [n]ation. The ABC Charter requires it to be a reflection of the society in which it operates. Thus the 'Sydney-centric' concentration is a cause for concern for all Australians, especially those in regional areas.[32]

3.29      Friends of the ABC was also particularly critical of the ABC's trend towards centralising television production, stating:

The level of centralisation of the ABC's corporate and editorial management and the location of so many of its major national services in a single city is unacceptable for a national broadcaster. And it results in less genuine diversity, including regional diversity in programming.[33]

3.30      Friends of the ABC argued that this increased centralisation was the result of inadequate funding and an ideological push by senior management to outsource more and more content to independent film makers.[34]

3.31      In contrast to the apparent centralisation of the ABC, the committee heard about moves by European broadcasters, and in particular the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), to decentralise television production to regional areas.[35]

3.32      Professor Jeff Malpas informed the committee that:

In contrast to the contemporary situation in Australia, the importance of regional identity, and its recognition, is widely acknowledged in Europe where there has been a clear push to shift away from the centralizing tendency that has characterized much of the development of the European Community...[36]

3.33      Professor Malpas further compared the ABC experience to that of the BBC:

The ABC stands in stark contrast to the BBC, which has not only moved to more decentralised production in its regions, but which also draws heavily on regional content and locations. In spite of some of its recently publicized difficulties, the BBC is nevertheless an excellent example of how a genuinely regional focus allows for the utilization of regional identity and diversity to become a source of distinctive content that is itself a positive media resource.[37]

3.34      The Tasmanian Department of Economic Development, Tourism and the Arts concurred:

The reality is that if the national broadcaster is truly to commit to regional diversity of content then it must stimulate proactively demand and incentivise regional production activity, rather than adopting a strategy of centralisation. It has been very instructive, I think, that after years of centralisation recently the BBC has changed direction and committed to 50 per cent of network spend to regional production by 2016. This is a genuine demonstration and proactive commitment on behalf of the BBC to regional UK, representing a philosophical shift away from centralisation and a commitment to public service values.

The BBC describes this as a healthy balance across internal, regional and independently generated production.[38]

3.35      In response to claims that it is centralising production and decision-making, the ABC advised the committee that it is continuing to invest in production outside of Sydney and Melbourne.[39] As outlined in paragraph 3.15, over the past five years the number of programs commissioned by the ABC outside New South Wales (NSW) and Victoria has remained steady.[40] Between 2007–08 and 2011–12, the ABC commissioned over 240 separate programs outside NSW and Victoria,[41] and numerous programs filmed in NSW and Victoria were filmed mainly in regional areas.[42]

3.36      The ABC further outlined its financial contribution to regional areas:

The ABC's financial contribution to productions commissioned from outside NSW and Victoria has remained steady over the last five years, with an average of $27 million investment per year. Investment in 2011–12 was $25 million.[43]

Committee comment

3.37      The committee is disappointed by the perceived centralisation of the ABC and expresses its view that the ABC must continue to maintain a significant level of activity in places outside Sydney and Melbourne. However, the committee acknowledges that television programs internally-produced in dedicated ABC production facilities are not the only way in which the ABC can reflect and represent regional diversity: in addition to commissioned or co-production investments news and current affairs broadcast on television, radio and the internet also ensures that local content is accessible to a wide audience.

3.38      The committee is pleased to note the ABC's advice about its financial commitment to production outside of NSW and Victoria and to a wide variety of regional and local services. The committee expects that spending on production outside of NSW and Victoria should be maintained.

3.39      While noting the government’s concern that publishing targets for regional content may interfere with the ABC's editorial independence,[44] the committee is of the view that greater accountability is warranted. The committee therefore recommends that the ABC annually publish its regional content production performance for ABC television. This would assist in assessing whether the ABC is honouring commitments made to maintain regional production and to promote ongoing program production outside of Sydney and Melbourne.

Recommendation 3

3.40      The committee recommends that the ABC annually publish its regional content production performance for ABC television, including data on the amount invested, number of programs produced, hours of production produced and number of independent companies used.

3.41      In addition to publishing the details of its regional content production performance, the committee recommends that the ABC makes a commitment to maintaining production in regional Australia be establishing a regional television production fund for production outside Sydney and Melbourne, for the purpose of stimulating production in the regions.

Recommendation 4

3.42      The committee recommends that the ABC establish a regional television production fund for production outside Sydney and Melbourne. This fund should be available to regional production exclusively and may be used as part of co-funded projects within the region with the aim to stimulate regional independent production.

Co-production

3.43      In place of having a dedicated production unit in Hobart, the ABC proposed to establish a $1.5 million independent production fund to produce content from Tasmania.[45] The co-production model has been used by the ABC in recent years in partnership with screen development agencies in various states.[46] The announcement by the ABC that the Hobart production unit would be replaced by independent production was met with concern by a number of submitters who condemned this approach as the ABC outsourcing production.[47]

3.44      It was argued that the overall trend of outsourcing television production to independent companies via co-productions is leaving the ABC without control over programs' independence, quality and copyright.[48] Friends of the ABC was particularly critical of this trend, describing it as 'back-door' privatisation and arguing that it results in lower production standards, outsourced programs that are not too dissimilar to programming from commercial broadcasters and a reduction in regional diversity.[49] Friends of the ABC went on:

The back-door privatisation of ABC television that is occurring is having a detrimental impact on ABC programming in many ways. It also has implications for regional diversity in ABC programming—both in the nature of television programs that are produced by the private production sector and its impact on the ABC's interest and capacity to deliver other sorts of programming.[50]

3.45      Friends of the ABC Western Australia (WA) was also critical of ABC outsourcing on the basis that government funds were being used to fund independent companies whilst the national broadcaster's facilities remained under-utilised:

FABC WA is concerned that funds provided to the ABC to make television programs are ultimately ending up with the independent, commercial or state-funded sector. Meanwhile, facilities at the ABC...are underused, hired out, or used by-co-producers. FABC WA would like to see figures that prove that it is cheaper to produce programs externally rather than inside the ABC, even allowing for the 'producer offset' which is not claimable by the ABC as a publicly-funded body.[51]

3.46      Submitters also argued that outsourcing via co-productions with independent companies tended to favour larger companies based in Sydney and Melbourne.[52] The Film and Television Association of the Northern Territory asserted that:

...as a series of internally-produced ABC programs have been decommissioned in recent years, there has been a noticeable drop in the opportunities for local screen producers to contribute by making whole segments or freelance with ABC crew.

Furthermore, we see a parallel centralisation in the ABC's outsourcing of television program production, where the growing legion of "super indie" production companies from Melbourne and Sydney are winning the bulk of ABC commissions.[53]

3.47      Friends of the ABC similarly remarked that:

Major Australian private production companies already tend to be located in only two capital cities—Sydney and Melbourne.

And there is no reason to believe that the already small number of private producers with the capacity to achieve the physical production values the ABC expects in programming will not decrease in the future, shrinking diversity even further.[54]

3.48      Wide Angle Tasmania made the observation that in states with a smaller and still maturing film production industry the co-production model would have a disproportionately large negative effect on local production companies.[55] In particular Wide Angle Tasmania noted that the Tasmanian film industry is still developing and this, coupled with the closure of the ABC production unit, may mean that local production companies cannot engage in co-production:

Increased outsourcing of TV production to the independent screen production sector offers few opportunities in regions where the sector remains relatively underdeveloped. Tasmania does not yet have a developed screen industry. Its state funding agency, Screen Tasmania, was only established in 1999. A couple of small production companies struggle to survive and remain largely dependent on subsidy. Thus a decision to axe the ABC's small Hobart based TV production unit has a disproportionately large effect on local screen production capacity, which will in turn limit the extent to which local companies can be commissioned to produce programs for ABC TV.[56]

3.49      The Screen Producers Association of Australia (SPAA), however, felt that a mixed production model is efficient and effective for the ABC:

Commissioning programs from the independent sector allows the ABC to use its funds to lever additional funds thereby acquiring more program content for less money. Independent producers are able to source additional production funds from other sources including state and federal government agencies, private investment, foreign pre-sales, and utilise taxation incentives such as the Producer Offset (a tax rebate of up to 20% of the production cost) that the ABC is unable to access for internal production.[57]

3.50      In 2011, this committee also recorded its support for the mixed production model, acknowledging that 'there will be times when co-produced content is preferred and others when internally produced material is preferred'.[58]

3.51      In its submission, the ABC outlined the rationale behind the mixed method of television production:

The ABC has a responsibility to use its scarce resources as efficiently and effectively as possible. Despite recent favourable funding allocations, in real terms, the ABC's income has diminished over the last two decades....In these constrained financial circumstances the ABC has continually reviewed its expenditure and services to ensure they are efficient and, where possible, more effective...

This imperative towards efficient use of resources lies behind the development of the mixed television production model and the ABC's Television Production Strategy 2011–13.[59]

3.52      The ABC further argued that the mixed production model:

...is taken to ensure its television production budget is invested in the most effective and efficient way, whilst still delivering to Australians the best possible programming. This includes making use of both internal and external production resources.[60]          

3.53      The ABC also noted that the mixed model of television production allows for greater creativity and flexibility in producing content:

A "mixed production" model involves the use of all these production models and provides considerable creative and financial benefits.

A mixed production model that utilises the best of the ABC's internal resources but which also allows the ABC to work with independent producers is the most efficient way for the Corporation to meet its Charter obligations. Commissioning a mix of internal and external production allows the ABC to deploy its resources and funding in the most efficient and effective manner.[61]

Committee comment

3.54      The committee investigated in detail the issue of the ABC's approach to using a mixed production model in its 2011 inquiry into recent ABC programming issues. The committee believes that co-production is no less capable than internal production of meeting societal expectations about local content and the ABC's charter obligation to reflect Australia's cultural diversity. The committee is therefore supportive of a mixed production model but draws attention to concerns raised during the course of this inquiry, and previously,[62] about ensuring regional content commitments are met between commissioned, co-produced and internally-produced programs.

3.55      The committee does not take issue with who makes content, but whether content effectively contributes to the ABC meeting its charter obligations. The committee believes it is possible that co-production models could lend themselves to providing more diverse content than programs produced in static facilities in capital cities and hopes this proves to be true.

The closure of the Perth production unit

3.56      The committee heard evidence from witnesses in Western Australia about the impact of the closure of the Perth production unit.[63] The CPSU informed the committee that without an ABC television production unit based in Perth, the broadcaster was not able to adequately represent Western Australia.[64]

3.57      Mr Doug Spencer from the CPSU stated:

For a truly national Australian broadcaster, it and its audience are both, in a very real sense, in the same very big place called Australia. Broadcaster and audience are one big 'us', both in the same 'here'. Sadly, it is increasingly obvious that this is not just ABC radio's, but television network's, reality. On air it is often distressingly apparent that 'here' is Sydney, or Sydney and Melbourne, and everywhere else is 'out there'. Sometimes those of us 'out there' are simply forgotten....At other times, they/we are actively addressed and/or visited but we are still 'out there', part of a distant 'them', not fellow members of 'us'. This is at least as unfortunate for the minority of Australia's population who live in Sydney and Melbourne as it is for Australia's so-called regional majority population.[65]

3.58      Ms Bobbie Mackley from the Friends of the ABC Western Australia likewise remarked that:

...the centralisation of decision making in Sydney and the diminution of the ABC's capital city centres outside Sydney and Melbourne, much exacerbated by the policy of outsourcing TV production, is what is compromising the ABC's approach to reflecting and representing regional diversity.[66]

Proposed closure of the ABC production unit in Hobart                   

3.59      As discussed in Chapter 1, on 20 November 2012, the ABC Managing Director announced that the ABC intended to close its Hobart television production unit.[67] Instead of having a unit to internally create productions, the ABC proposed to establish an independent production fund to finance co-produced content. The ABC stated:

In place of internal ABC production in Tasmania, the ABC is proposing to invest $1.5 million over three years in a production fund and is seeking a matching investment from the state Government....this approach will emulate the successful partnerships the ABC with governments and their screen agencies in both South Australia and Western Australia, which have ensured continuity of local production in these states.[68]

3.60      The Tasmanian Department of Economic Development, Tourism and the Arts clarified the state government's understanding of the ABC's proposal:

The Tasmanian Government has never been requested to provide direct funding to continue ABC in-house television production in Tasmania.

In the content of the potential closure of the ABC internal production unit, the former Director of Television Kim Dalton in late 2011, broadly discussed possible alternative models for financing new independent television production in Tasmania, which included the partial redirection of funds from the closure of the Tasmanian internal production unit into the commissioning of one independently produced television factual series. This proposal did include the suggestion that the Tasmanian Government provide additional financial commitment beyond Screen Tasmania's allocation, though no formal request or amount was ever proposed.[69]

3.61      The Tasmanian government advised that it had consistently rejected any suggestion that television production in Tasmania should be solely carried out by the independent sector, or that the government should contribute to the cost of replacing one of the internally produced ABC shows with an independent production.[70]

Impact of the proposed closure of the Hobart production unit

3.62      The announcement by ABC management of its intention to close the Hobart production unit was met with concern by many submitters.[71] They argued that removal of a production unit based in Tasmania would have wide-ranging implications including inadequate representation of Tasmanian culture and identity; the loss of skills, expertise and training opportunities; and the inability to broadcast important regional events. These are discussed below.

 Tasmanian culture and identity

3.63      Tasmania, like each Australian state and territory, has distinctive geographical features and a unique sense of culture and identity. Some submitters argued that because of these unique and defining characteristics, it is important that Tasmania is able to present its identity to the rest of Australia itself.[72]

3.64      Professor Jeff Malpas from the University of Tasmania described the importance of Tasmania being able to broadcast its unique culture, history and geography to Australian audiences. According to Professor Malpas:

Compared to the Australian mainland, Tasmania is indeed another country. It has a strong sense of its own distinctive sense of place that derives from its character as an island, as well as from its unique natural and cultural heritage. Undoubtedly this sense of place, and the strong sense of identity that goes with it, is one of the reasons there has been such a response to the threatened loss of ABC production facilities, but it also connects directly with the enormous potential that the island offers as a source of production content.

Tasmania's distinctive history, the wealth of creative activity it supports, the variety, beauty, and grandeur of its landscape, the scientific interest to be found in its own flora and fauna, as well as its role as the gateway to Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, all contribute to making the state a potentially rich location for  the generation of innovative and distinctive content...Moreover, since Tasmania also has a particularly high concentration of academic, artistic and cultural expertise and capacity, so it offers a very strong pool of creative talent. In these respects, it has to be viewed as a significant source of strength in relation to both content and production.[73]

3.65      Wide Angle Tasmania shared this view:

Tasmania is home to the much acclaimed [Museum of Old and New Art], and to many cultural festivals and events. It has diverse other attractions, from the beauty and comparatively unspoilt nature of its natural environment to the historical interest of its built heritage. It has considerable strengths in scientific and Antarctic research, in literature and food production. And it has a remarkably vibrant and growing creative community.[74]

3.66      The Hon Cassy O'Connor MP, Tasmanian Minister for Community Development, similarly remarked upon the unique identity of Tasmanians:

Tasmania is a small and unique state, with a proud island identity. It has always had an exceptionally inspiring pool of creative talent but it is only now that this strength is beginning to truly surface, gain recognition and be measured for its significant contribution to the vibrancy and economic prosperity of the state.[75]

3.67      Mr Graham Himmelhoch-Mutton submitted:

Firstly, I'd like to state the obvious—that as an island state, the culture of Tasmania is very different to that of mainland Australia and it is impossible to properly reflect this without a production unit there. Centralising production to the main centres of Sydney and Melbourne will only serve to further diminish the impact of Tasmanian life and culture on Australia as a whole.[76]

3.68      The South Hobart Progress Association agreed, arguing that Tasmanians feel a sense of 'disconnection and disappointment' with the national broadcaster in its decision to close the Hobart production unit and that the decision limits 'the opportunity for the exposure of local cultural identity'.[77] Ms Sandra Cotton similarly stated 'regional diversity and national identity will be diminished with the loss of the ABC Tasmania [p]roduction [u]nit'.[78]

3.69      Other submitters opined that Tasmanians would lose the capacity to tell local stories in their own way and that with no local content (aside from news) being produced there would be no local historical archive to draw from in the future.[79]

3.70      Wide Angle Tasmania highlighted that 'many Tasmanians have become increasingly alienated from a national broadcaster that appears to have little regards for the culture of their home state, or for Tasmanians' views, concerns and televisual needs'.[80] Wide Angle Tasmania further argued that:

In not adequately representing or considering the needs of Tasmania and its citizens, the national broadcaster is failing to fulfil its obligation to contribute to a sense of national identity that is inclusive of Australians living outside the major metropolitan areas. Moreover it is denying mainland Australians' exposure to perspectives offered by their fellow Australians in the nation's smallest state.[81]

3.71      The Tasmanian Department of Economic Development, Tourism and the Arts argued the closure of the Hobart production unit would have impacts beyond just representing Tasmania to the rest of the nation.[82] According to the department:

...for geographically isolated Tasmania, the ABC also has a valuable and pragmatic function as a communicator, providing information, social cohesion and a focal point for community events...'.[83]

Skills, expertise and training

3.72      The ABC's Hobart production unit produced a variety of programs including the well-known Gardening Australia and Collectors television shows. Indeed, Tasmanians who submitted to the inquiry wrote of their pride in the ABC Hobart production unit and its ability to create entertaining programs that were broadcast to the rest of Australia.[84]

3.73      Mr Phil Long gave an overview of the unit's body of work:

The ABC Tasmania Production Unit and Field Operations staff have over the years made a wide variety of programs, differing in their budgets, formats, timeslots and genres. Productions have included education, lifestyle, factual, documentary, drama, outside broadcasting of special events, sport and arts programming. Programs such as All in a Day's Work and Fridge Door were completely new formats created by the Unit. The enduring Gardening Australia was born out of the earlier Hobart created program Landscape which introduced Peter Cundall to the viewing audience.

...

The Hobart Production Unit was asked to devise programming to replace Gardening Australia and this resulted in two new programs, Second Opinion and Collectors. Towards the end of the first year, it was decided Second Opinion would cease production but Collectors was an unexpected success.[85]

3.74      Mr Darrell Meagher, a producer with the Hobart production unit, likewise informed the committee of the success of Gardening Australia and Collectors:

The two long term programs I had worked on, Gardening Australia and Collectors had allowed us high levels of autonomy in deciding the content, look and ethos of the programs. While we never promoted the fact that the programs where made out of Tasmania, both where strongly Tasmanian-centric. This obviously struck a chord with our audiences and they voted with their remote controls. Both programs also traded on the strengths of a regional branch.[86]

3.75      Submitters and witnesses argued that closure of the Hobart production unit would result in the loss of a substantial pool of skills and expertise not only to ABC Tasmania but also to the broader Tasmanian film and television industry. Professor Margaret Reynolds, representing Friends of the ABC Tasmania, explained:

Let me...highlight the impact of the closure of the Tasmanian film production unit. Of course it is primarily about the loss of jobs, but it is also about the ABC's role as a leader in this industry. It is not just about those jobs; it is about the jobs that, through leadership, it encourages. Obviously it is about the loss of direct ABC jobs—in directing, editorial, camera, sound, archives and support functions—but it is also about young filmmakers losing career path and mentors. The ABC mentors so many local filmmakers and potential filmmakers. The Tasmanian screen industry will lose key professionals and opportunities to work in partnership with the ABC. There is a bit of a myth that it has to be all or nothing. Not at all. There can be very productive partnerships between the ABC and the independent film sector. But you have got to have equality and you have also got to have that leadership from our national broadcaster. Some local filmmakers will be obliged to leave the state and there will be no capacity for creative screen industries to take advantage of the National Broadband Network.[87]

3.76      Ms Jill Beckingsale indicated that freelance camera operators, writers and producers would also be severely impacted by the closure of the ABC production unit and that 'there are no other production houses in Tasmania through which these freelancers can find alternative employment'.[88]

3.77      These concerns about the loss of key professionals, career pathways and training opportunities were shared by Wide Angle Tasmania:

As a screen development organisation dedicated to training and supporting local screen practitioners, Wide Angle is very concerned about the withdrawal of resources for ABC TV production in Tasmania and the effect that will have on the state's screen sector, on its production and employment capacities and on the state's screen culture.

...

Tasmania does not yet have a developed screen industry. There is no film school, no Screen Australia, no really sizeable production companies of the kind preferred by ABC decision-makers. There are no network heads, commissioning editors, major distributors and no community television channels here...So the loss of the ABC TV production unit is a very big blow in terms of the local situation. The Tasmanian screen sector will lose employment and training options, expertise and important infrastructure.[89]

3.78      And:

The Australian Film and Television and Radio School no longer have a Hobart presence. There is limited TAFE sector training in screen production. Wide Angle Tasmania is a screen resource organisation struggling to provide training opportunities to emerging screen practitioners with a mere fraction of the grants provided to like organisations in other states. The ABC is therefore an important contributor in this area, providing professional development opportunities to its own employees, who in turn often contribute their skills to assisting emerging screen practitioners in the broader community.[90]

3.79      Other submitters highlighted further training and development opportunities that would be lost if the Hobart production unit closed. Ms Carol Rea informed the committee that Tasmania is producing 'enterprising and highly skilful people in film and television' and that the Hobart production unit 'supports this by occupying a stable and crucial segment of the media continuum in Tasmania'.[91] Ms Tracey Smith stated that the Hobart production unit 'has regularly mentored work experience students from Rosny College and through the Tasmanian Indigenous Working Group the unit has been working towards work experience placements for indigenous student[s] into all facets of TV production'.[92]

3.80      Mr Jim Mashberg drew attention to some of the wider implications for training and development if regional film and television production continues to be lost:

If there are no productions in regional Australia, where are the opportunities for the next generation of camera operators, editors, technicians, and so on, to hone their skills? The ABC has nurtured award-winning directors, camera operators, editors, etc. in the regional branches. Again, the loss of local production robs these people of any chance to follow this great tradition.[93]

Broadcast of important regional events

3.81      Related to the proposed closure of the Hobart production unit, some submitters were concerned about the ABC's ability to broadcast important regional events such as state funerals and ANZAC Day marches.[94]

3.82      The Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) was of the view that closure of the Hobart production unit, coupled with the previous loss of the Outside Broadcasting (OB) van, would mean that the ABC's capacity to broadcast important regional events in Tasmania was limited.[95] According to the CPSU, 'the significance of this loss on Tasmania is large' with the ABC no longer able to cover certain styles of television programs, including sport.[96]

3.83      Other submitters raised concerns that Tasmania would not have the capability to broadcast state funerals, memorial services or ANZAC Day parades.[97]

Goodwood Studio

3.84      The committee also heard that recent decisions by the ABC regarding production in Tasmania had resulted in the closure of the Goodwood Studio in Hobart.

3.85      The Goodwood Studio was established in 2006 by the ABC and the Tasmanian Department of Economic Development, Tourism and the Arts.[98] The department summarised the arrangement:

...the [d]epartment undertook in collaboration with the ABC, to convert an existing building into a studio when the ABC television series Collectors was moved to a national prime time slot on the national broadcaster in 2006. The cost of this conversion to the [d]epartment was just under $1 million. The department agreed to build the studio on the basis that the ABC would become the main tenant and the space would be hired out to other uses when the ABC was not in production.[99]

3.86      The studio facility was built without a Master Control Room and lighting equipment, as the ABC provided its own.[100] This, according to the department, 'limited the studio's viability as a TV studio', requiring other potential clients to hire additional equipment and lighting.[101]

3.87      When the Collectors program was cancelled in 2010, the studio became vacant and was unused apart from Sara Cooper's Screen Academy which was provided with the space free of charge by Screen Tasmania.[102] The department advised that:

As the studio was no longer being used for its original purpose, the withdrawal of the ABC's OB [outside broadcast] facilities together with the general unsuitability of the studio space, meant that it was almost impossible to market to other users. The Department of Economic Development received an offer to lease the space for $120 000 pa for 12 years, there was no strong argument in favour of retention.[103]

The ABC's response

3.88      In response to concerns about closure of the Hobart production unit, the ABC reiterated its commitment to regional stories that reflect the breadth and diversity of the nation, including Tasmania'[104] and rebutted criticisms about its withdrawal from the state. Mr Scott claimed:

Contrary to some criticism, we are not pulling out of the island state. In fact, we still have a strong Tasmanian presence, and we intend to keep it. The ABC will retain its offices in Launceston, Burnie and Hobart, from where 160 staff work to produce radio content, ABC Open material, local television and radio news reports and reports for 7:30, along with all the backup services and administrative support. The recent restructuring of the Hobart news team is designed to deliver more detailed news coverage in the state, and from the state to the nation.[105]

3.89      The ABC explained that the decision to close the Hobart production unit was made on the basis of budgetary considerations. According to the ABC:

Despite recent favourable funding allocations, in real terms, the ABC's income has diminished over the last two decades. The 2012–13 operational revenue from Government of $840 million represents a decrease in real funding of $253 million or 23.1% since 1985–86. In these constrained financial circumstances the ABC has continually reviewed its expenditure and services to ensure they are efficient and, where possible, more effective.[106]

3.90      The ABC further explained that through its commissioning process, it decided not to re-commission the Hobart production unit's show Auction Room.[107] The cessation of Auction Room therefore presented the ABC with an opportunity to restructure its operations in Tasmania. The ABC submitted that:

With this in mind [the decommissioning of Auction Room], the ABC considered a new process is required for commissioning production in of [sic] Tasmanian, given financial constraints and future commissioned production demand. The ABC proposes to partner with independent producers as this will better provide the flexibility to commission Australian content that meets needs of the schedule, the requirements of the Charter and audience demand.[108]

3.91      In place of internal production in Tasmania, the ABC has proposed to invest $1.5 million over three years in a production fund to commission independent companies to produce content and has asked the state government to match this investment.[109] The ABC expressed its hope that this approach in Tasmania would emulate the partnerships it has with governments and their screen agencies in South Australia and Western Australia.[110] Further, the ABC stated that 'given the ability to leverage additional funds through co-productions, this approach is will [sic] sustain and grow Tasmanian production'.[111]

3.92      The ABC contended that its commitment to providing training and development opportunities in Tasmania would continue:

ABC Tasmania also provides work experience to numerous students across the year, principally in the News and Resources (journalists and camera operators) divisions. In early 2011, the ABC signed Memorandums of Understanding with the Riawunna Centre (University of Tasmania), Rosny College and Claremont College to provide work placement opportunities for Australian indigenous students. This is in addition to NAIDOC Week activities, which have in the past also included displays of student art work, students interviewing elders for radio and producing music for on air.[112]

3.93      With respect to outside broadcasts and broadcasting important regional events, the ABC indicated that it would continue to support Tasmanian production of events such as ANZAC Day, as well as hosting other ad hoc events such as Q&A and state election coverage.[113] However, the ABC did not accept responsibility for closure of the Goodwood Studio, stating that it is not the ABC's responsibility '...anywhere in the country to be commissioning programs to be keeping local studios active...In fact, our responsibility is not to keep local film production all around the country busy. Our charter says "reflect the country back to the nation"'.[114]

Committee comment

3.94      As stated earlier, the committee believes that the responsibility to 'contribute to a sense of national identity and inform and entertain, and reflect the cultural diversity of, the Australian community' is a central pillar of the ABC Charter. Without limiting the ways in which the ABC might achieve this or impinging on editorial independence, the committee believes the ABC must continue to reflect the cultural and regional diversity of the Australian community.

3.95      The committee supports a mixed production model that includes co-production and internally produced programming. It is the committee's view that co-production can adequately represent and reflect Australia's cultural and regional diversity, that is, internal production is not the only way in which the ABC can meet this charter obligation.

3.96      The committee does not believe it is appropriate for it to determine on the ABC's behalf how a balance between co-production, internal production and commissioned programming should be achieved; the committee does emphasise, however, that the ABC must acquire its programming content in a manner that efficiently allocates its resources and maximises its capacity to produce unique content in accordance with the requirements of the ABC Charter.

3.97      However, the committee would be concerned if there are possible negative impacts on local skills, expertise and training opportunities associated with decisions made by the ABC about its production facilities in regional areas. The committee hopes that dedicated spending on co-produced activities in regional areas will maintain and foster expertise and skills into the future. While the committee supports the ABC maximising funding for production of content, it has reservations about the seemingly "tied" nature of funding commitments to production in Tasmania which seemingly require funds from the state government for ABC investment to occur. The committee believes there should be some unconditional investments, from which additional investment should be leveraged wherever possible.

3.98      On that basis, and in accordance with Recommendation 4, the committee recommends that the ABC make a firm financial commitment to investing in production outside of Sydney and Melbourne, against which it can be measured.

Recommendation 5

3.99      The committee recommends that the ABC make and publish at regular intervals its future financial commitment to investing in production outside of Sydney and Melbourne.

 

Senator Simon Birmingham
Chair

Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page