KM: Mr Turnbull, what is this review about, what’s the objective?
MT: Well, the objective is to get a really good assessment of the cost-effectiveness of both of our public broadcasters, the ABC and SBS, and to look at what would be the most efficient ways, in terms of cost-effectiveness of delivering their programming. So it is not designed to look at the content of news, whether your stories have been good, bad or indifferent. It’s not about giving programming advice, about whether a particular drama should be run or not, it’s just about the cost of keeping the show on the road, the back of house costs, which is of course the costs of the whole business.
KM: But that means you are looking for savings, is that right?
MT: Well, the study will be looking for efficiencies. There’s potential for savings, obviously, but there’s also the potential for the broadcasters to better allocate the funds they’ve got so that they can do more, so they can get more bang with the same buck.
KM: What’s the sense that you have already of what the potential might be for savings?
MT: Look, I’ve got very little doubt that savings will be identified, I’m sure of that. I’ve always been very impressed with SBS for many years, for over twenty-five years, about the leanness, the lean and hungry approach of SBS to budgets, so I guess it’s always been lean and competitive.
KM: This is not a precursor for any merger plans for the ABC and SBS?
MT: No, I’ve never been a fan of a simple merger. You know, there’s been the proposition put often by people associated with the ABC, that if the ABC could just acquire, takeover SBS there would be some savings because you wouldn’t need two legal departments, two accounting departments, that sort of thing. I’ve never been persuaded by that, Karen, and I’ll explain why. SBS because it’s never had a big budget has always been a very lean operation. The ABC, while it does a lot more than SBS has had a much bigger budget, four times the size, or very close to that. And so as a consequence, the idea that if you allowed a large, well-expensed business to take over a smaller, less well-expensed business, that you’d get savings seems to defy commercial experience. There may be all sorts of other arguments made, but I don’t think the idea that there’s some quick cost savings by putting the two businesses together on some kind of simplistic basis, I don’t think is fair.
KM: Do you have any sense of where in those organisations savings could be found?
MT: Well, that’s a matter for the review.
KM: You say it’s not about the content, or the news, yet it comes at a time when we’ve seen some criticism of late, particularly of the ABC. How are we to interpret this, if it comes a day after the Prime Minister attacked the ABC?
MT: Well, this study has been in the works for quite some time, as you can imagine, and there’s been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing and discussions with the ABC and SBS about it, so there’s no linkage to any comments that may have been made yesterday by the PM.
KM: So what do you think of the comments made, he said that the ABC was being ‘un-Australian’ that it seemed to be on every team except Australia’s?
MT: I think the Prime Minister’s remarks were in criticism of a particular story. Everyone’s entitled to criticise your stories, the ABC’s stories; but the fact is the ABC, like SBS, has editorial independence. I’m the Communications Minister, but I’m not the Editor-in-Chief of the ABC or SBS.
KM: So in short, this review is about looking for efficiencies – we could be looking at budget cuts ultimately as a result at both SBS and the ABC?
MT: I’d only go halfway there. I’d say this is all about efficiencies, and what flows from that – we’ll see in good time.
Share
