An inquiry into the competitive neutrality of the national broadcasters is set to commence shortly but the terms of reference, and the real purpose of the inquiry, remain a mystery.
According to Mitch Fifield’s Department of Communications, the review — first announced as part of the government’s deal with One Nation senators to pass media ownership reforms last year — will commence in the next couple of weeks and is expected to take around six months. It will be undertaken by an expert panel, but the terms of reference and format are still being finalised.
It’s understood the department has been looking for people with public broadcasting and commercial broadcasting backgrounds to provide the appearance of balance to the panel.
Last year, Fifield struggled to explain why the government hadn’t referred the issue to the Productivity Commission’s Competitive Neutrality Complaints Office. That’s a separate unit within the PC that handles complaints about publicly owned bodies having a competitive advantage over private sector bodies because of their government ownership — and particularly government-owned bodies undercutting private sector competitors on pricing. The ABC’s in-house production facilities have been the subject of previous competitive neutrality complaints about competing with private sector production facilities, but no breach was found.
The impetus for the inquiry came not from One Nation but from commercial broadcasters. And the ABC isn’t necessarily the main target.
In a submission to an inquiry into Australian and children’s content last year, Free TV Australia, which represents the commercial broadcasting oligopoly, called for a review of the roles of ABC and SBS, with the goal of forcing them to be the primary vehicles for meeting content obligations. And “the government should also ensure the national broadcasters are not undermining the health of the sector by using public funds to compete in mainstream content areas where audiences are already well served,” the oligopolists complained.
A few months earlier, the Nine Network — chaired by Fifield’s former boss, Peter Costello — had made its feelings clearer in a submission to a parliamentary inquiry into the film and TV industry (the committee site link is broken, but there’s a copy here). Nine called for a charter overhaul of the ABC and SBS and complained that “both the ABC and SBS appear to divert from their respective charters without any accountability.” But SBS was the real target of Nine.
Of more concern are the recent activities of SBS. SBS will receive $814.2 million over the next three years from 2016-17 in government funding. Nine consistently finds itself in a competitive bidding process with SBS for programming. SBS’s content acquisitions appear to be based on chasing commercial ratings and revenue while not servicing its charter or target audience. This alone is a significant factor in driving up the cost of commercially attractive content while eating into commercial TV revenues.
The commercial broadcasters led a successful fight against government plans to dramatically increase the amount of time SBS TV could screen ads in prime time in 2015 and again in 2017. And they appear to have a case in relation to SBS TV, which in prime time is now virtually indistinguishable from commercial networks, with multicultural programming — supposedly the raison d’etre of SBS — confined to little-watched morning schedule, when there’s no live sport being broadcast. SBS Radio now shoulders nearly all of the burden of providing in-language services to Australia’s multicultural communities.
A genuine inquiry might be a precursor to a serious look at whether the government should continue to fund SBS TV at all, or confine it strictly to the broadcaster’s charter and get rid of advertising. But it’s unlikely that a government in as much strife as this one is interested in going there.
I tried, I tried to get my mind around the two words ‘competitive neutrality”. I think the left hemisphere was just two competitive for the right as the left led with a left hook and the hook was in the first sentence. Wow what a punchline. To be neutral is to be neutral and uncompetitive., I asked myself the question of just what is “competitive neutrality” as one of the words surely must give up and be a fatality.
If there is no purpose to the inquiry there is no inquiry and the state of affairs stays neutral.
Perhaps it is like “change with continuity”, vacuity as value?
Totally right, Shrdlu – it is absurd – but no-one in the media seems to pick them up on this, besides Crikey and a few indie media outlets. What is Fairfax and even the Guardian doing? Thank you.
You make a great point. It’s doublespeak, I think, this competitive neutrality. I have no idea what it means.
But I’ll have a guess. “We, the arch capitalists of Australia who have been given public airwaves for free whereas we used to have to pay millions for them, have decided that competition is bad. We would like to continue earning gobs of money while producing utter crap for what used to be captive audiences. Having taken our audiences for granted all these years, we now don’t know how to produce a quality product, and in our arch-capitalist hypocrite ways now call on governments to protect us from ourselves.”
Wankers!
SBS already a commercial channel. Their sin is that they are delivering both great programming and; filling every slot with multitudinous advertising.
ABC simply must be muzzled from offering any comment independent of current government view, belief or policy. [Mission almost complete].
Overall objectives: Government Rules . . . Corporate Elites protected . . . Power and Riches in trusted hands.
As much as I can’t stand the commercial networks, it’s clear that SBS had gone far, far beyond its core business. In what way do shows like ‘The Good Fight’ and ‘The Crystal Maze’ reflect multicultural Australia (as the SBS charter requires)? They even fund a podcast where hipsters review episodes of the old Batman show. I support public broadcasting, but SBS’s transformation into a hipster’s paradise reliant on big money US content is not an appropriate way to spend taxpayer money.
Agree. Tis a shame she’s (become) a whore.
I agree with your stance.
Nevertheless, Friday night’s double episodes of the original ‘Batman’ are a treat – the unforgettable theme tune in my head as I type – a commercial network would never have run them. Also, Viceland airs edgy docos & alternative news reports which the commercials wouldn’t touch.
The self appointed enemies of the ABC SBS will not stop sniping, niggling, rubbishing, whinging, moaning, sneering, nagging, complaining and calling for inquiries, investigations, examinations, budget cuts, program changes, staff revamps, and any other thing they can think of to reduce the effectiveness and quality of the ABC and SBS programs.
Well, these self appointed enemies can just rack off. The ABC and SBS belong to the people, present far better quality programs than the commercial outlets, and don’t have bias in their news programs.
But I’m sure the enemies will persist until their agenda is achieved.
Oh,,,,, you’re not sure what the enemie’s agenda is??? Well, have a look at this cartoon, it’ll give you damn good idea . . . . . . . . . .
https://cartoonmick.wordpress.com/editorial-political/#jp-carousel-828
Cheers
Mick
It’s almost as if the intent is to reduce the ABC to Vonnegut’s “Monkey House”.