Margaret Simons oversimplifies my suggestions about future models for publicly funded broadcasting and the role of the ABC.

To say that my ideas would boil the ABC down to “little more than Radio National and perhaps Four Corners” is quite unfair and diminishes the debate.

I reiterate what I said in my recent speech that Simons refers to:

… in the digital age we need to be careful to ensure that public broadcasters like the ABC don’t merely replicate what the private sector is now doing or inadvertently crowd out market-driven creativity and innovation.

If Simons is right and Radio National and Four Corners are the only points of ABC originality then there really is a problem.

I recap what I said in the speech so as not to be misunderstood:

The ABC … should not be seen as the default provider of all publicly funded content. We need to look at new models — such as making some public funding open to contestability. Because no one is suggesting an end to public broadcasting or free-to-air commercial broadcasting, we’re happy to compete against it.

Note that I said “some” public funding should be open to contest.  And the contestants could be any public or private organisation or combination, including public television, subscription television, commercial television, independent producers, or institutions like universities. The ABC has an important role and strong public support, but it cannot be regarded as the only way to achieve good public broadcasting outcomes, particularly if digital innovation and a creative Australia are to flourish — and especially if one looks at the television track record over an extended period.

For example, Foxtel, Austar and Sky News from the subscription television sector have provided Australia’s public affairs channel A-PAC on our own initiative on a not-for-profit basis at no cost to taxpayers.  A-PAC is an open church. It recently broadcast ABC managing director Mark Scott’s major speech on the ABC’s pitch to become Australia’s exclusive “soft diplomacy” broadcaster without contest from anyone else.

Our agenda is not to diminish the ABC, but we do think it should be made accountable as with all institutions for any additional taxpayer expenditure on public broadcasting that the government may decide to allot and such decisions should scope possibilities for the best diversity in delivery to audiences. My remarks are very much about television and not about the radio endeavour of the ABC which is clearly entirely different in content, focus and approach.

Ironically in her defence of the ABC’s role in providing equity of access to “quality information”, innovation and addressing what she sees as increasing market failure in local content, investigative journalism, and rural and regional reportage, Simons wrote: “Cast forward 20 years, when new business models have emerged, when innovations have been adopted and settled in, then it is easy to see that the justifications for taxpayer-funded media might be different, or even absent.”

Australia won’t be moving anywhere if we cling to old ideas about the pre-eminence and wisdom of institutions like the ABC in knowing the public interest and fail to test them against the creativity, innovations and value that other additional approaches may provide. Accepting the reality of pluralism in content and delivery and judging performance on what actually happens — what the outcomes are rather than on what people say they are — is fundamental to a sensible and reasoned discussion on public policy. The reference to regional coverage is one case in point where news aside the ABC has almost abandoned the territory on television.

I take no pleasure in the ABC television service having the worst Australian content record on television in terms of hours of local content broadcast over more than the past decade but that is the reality of things and it must be accountable for it. We should all recognise that this has been an outcome deriving not just from “government bogeyman” arguments (which so often are way too facile) but also from deliberate choices on the ABC’s part.

I, like many Australians, welcome the renewal of commitment to Australian content on television by the ABC and the recognition that it needs to lift its game.

I have and will continue to freely acknowledge many of the splendid things Mark Scott has done in leading the ABC, however it is unhelpful to regard the ABC as having purity in the television arena and it has a long way to go before it matches others in their proven level of commitment and delivery of Australian material.  We do Australian audiences and taxpayers no service by misrepresenting the position.