The ABC of Changing

With the ABC facing a future with at least $155m less ($35.3m cut in the Federal Budget, plus $120m saving from the demise of Australia Network) than was expected, nothing is sacred. Television and radio current affairs flagship programmes are as much at risk as the myriad of vital behind the scenes support functions. Now that Peter Lewis, the government-appointed ABC efficiency auditor, has been appointed to the ABC Board, penny-pinching projects and efficiency drives are virtually assured. Restructures won’t be far away either – and that’s usually corporate code for redundancies.

But who wins?

The Federal Government has made a gain of $155 million to spend elsewhere. Is that significant in a budget with expenditure of $415b? Joe Hockey could’ve found similar savings by purchasing 57 of the F35 Joint Strike Fighter planes rather than 58, or by defunding the unpopular National Chaplaincy Service for about four years…but those don’t sit well with the Liberal Party’s conservative agenda. Financially, it’s a modest gain for the Budget at best.

The ABC is to some extent a soft target, and a very appealing one for a government which is not a fan of the national broadcaster. Almost every front bench minister in the Abbott government has endured some discomfort at the hands of ABC journalists. Conservative commentators such as Chris Kenny (a former Liberal senior staffer and unsuccessful Liberal candidate) and Janet Albrechtsen (a member of the panel that oversees appointments to the ABC board) see this as institutionalised bias against the Abbott government, rather than a failure of the government ministers on air.

In fact, both Kenny and Albrechtsen write for The Australian, so the ABC probably does look fairly “left” from their conservative perspective. Despite the numerous reviews, audits and surveys into the perception of bias at the ABC, no evidence of systemic bias has been found.

The on-again, off-again budget emergency and resulting slash and burn budget has provided the Government with the opportunity to adjust the perceived imbalance. Having said that, there’s no proof that a leaner news and current affairs operation would be any friendlier towards the current government.

The loftier benefit might just be the one suggested by Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi, a long-time critic of the ABC’s perceived progressive agenda. Senator Bernardi noted that the ABC’s recent expansion into online news would be at the expense of established commercial media, particularly newspapers. Given Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s close relationship with Rupert Murdoch, and Murdoch’s ability to drive their shared agenda through his newspapers, Senator Bernardi is probably hoping that scaling back the ABC would result in their withdrawal from the online news space. His preference seems to be for the ABC to stay out of online news altogether, clearing the way for organisations such as Murdoch’s News Corporation and Fairfax Media to battle it out for online supremacy, as they have done for decades with printed newspapers.

But the development of the online platform as a legitimate news delivery mode has undermined the old Murdoch-Fairfax press duopoly; it simply doesn’t exist online.

The fundamental flaw in Senator Bernardi’s argument is that people who turn to ABC Online for news are unlikely to switch their allegiance to Murdoch’s news.com.au or newspapers. They would be far more likely to select from the many other news services: The Guardian, The Saturday Paper, the Fairfax titles, and for international news, BBC Global, New York Times and almost every other news organisation on the planet. 

When some ABC personalities’ salaries were accidentlyrevealed late last year, some on the anti-Aunty train will continue to call for salary cuts – a dangerous option at best. The ABC’s commercial rivals earn up to ten times the salaries of the ABC team. Cut the salaries a little, and the impact on the bottom line will be negligible. Cut more than a little, and the ABC would run the risk of losing their top-rating stars. 

Peter Lewis’s appointment to the ABC Board may indicate the opposite approach; after conducting an efficiency review of the ABC, his focus will be on trimming the back office areas and restructuring. Looking at the current ABC structure (above), there are obvious opportunities.

Forgive the management-speak: there are potential synergies available in reducing the overall number of director-level positions, and. in combining departments with related functions. The hypothetical restructure (below) reduces the number of Directors from the current thirteen (plus State/Territory Directors) to nine (plus State/Territory Directors), but makes the assumption that all thirteen areas are required. Of the four that have disappeared, three have been folded into the remaining nine departments. The last director-level position is the CEO – ABC International. Is this position required at all?

Further synergies may be found by rolling SBS into the picture in the areas of Corporate Services and Operations.

The massive downside of a restructure like this is that the newly organised corporation still needs to find around $35m in savings, and in order to preserve programme quality, these savings will largely come within the areas shaded red: the people no-one sees or hears.

Right now, the ABC needs to do two things: the first is to revisit its current strategy to ensure that the existing strategy aligns with both the ABC Charter and current output.

The second thing to do is to keep on being our dependable Aunty ABC, complete with Jemima and Big Ted, Tony Jones and Leigh Sales, Spencer Howson and Mark Colvin, two Bananas, News 24 and iView. 

The ABC of Cost-Cutting

"The savings sought from the ABC are not of a scale that will require reductions in programme expenditure. The ABC may choose to cut programming rather than tackle back office and administrative costs - but that's the ABC's call."

These were the words of Communication Minister Malcolm Turnbull earlier this week, speaking about the likelihood that the ABC will have to scratch some of its most respected current affairs programmes due to the Government’s budget cuts.

The decision to cut $35.5m from the ABC’s operating budget has already been made, and it’s just been announced that Peter Lewis, the man who was tasked with the recent Efficiency Audit, has been appointed to the ABC Board. In all likelihood, Mr Turnbull would have been aware of Mr Lewis’s appointment before declaring it the “ABC’s call”.

While Peter Lewis’s influence as a board member may sway the balance towards cutting back office and support roles rather than programmes like Lateline, the question remains whether the ABC should be facing cuts at all.

The argument in favour of cuts to the ABC are predicated on the “budget emergency” being real, and involve two areas: the commercial media environment and the perceived bias of the ABC.

Shouldn’t we be looking at what the ABC provides and questioning its worth, rather than questioning the cost to provide it? Shouldn’t someone be asking what we want from Our ABC? Shouldn’t we be looking at the ABC Charter – a very handy piece of legislation, reprinted below – and determine if the Charter is still relevant, and then, if the ABC is meeting its charter? 

Shouldn’t we be looking at the ABC’s performance against that Charter, and asking our government if the organisation can meet the obligations detailed within the charter while sustaining a $35.5 million dollar budget cut, and without the Australia Network?

For the curious, here’s the Charter.

Charter of the Corporation 

             (1)  The functions of the Corporation are:

                     (a)  to provide within Australia innovative and comprehensive broadcasting services of a high standard as part of the Australian broadcasting system consisting of national, commercial and community sectors and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to provide:

                              (i)  broadcasting programs that contribute to a sense of national identity and inform and entertain, and reflect the cultural diversity of, the Australian community; and

                             (ii)  broadcasting programs of an educational nature;

                     (b)  to transmit to countries outside Australia broadcasting programs of news, current affairs, entertainment and cultural enrichment that will:

                              (i)  encourage awareness of Australia and an international understanding of Australian attitudes on world affairs; and

                             (ii)  enable Australian citizens living or travelling outside Australia to obtain information about Australian affairs and Australian attitudes on world affairs; and

                   (ba)  to provide digital media services; and

                     (c)  to encourage and promote the musical, dramatic and other performing arts in Australia.

Note:          See also section 31AA (Corporation or prescribed companies to be the only providers of Commonwealth‑funded international broadcasting services).

             (2)  In the provision by the Corporation of its broadcasting services within Australia:

                     (a)  the Corporation shall take account of:

                              (i)  the broadcasting services provided by the commercial and community sectors of the Australian broadcasting system;

                             (ii)  the standards from time to time determined by the ACMA in respect of broadcasting services;

                            (iii)  the responsibility of the Corporation as the provider of an independent national broadcasting service to provide a balance between broadcasting programs of wide appeal and specialized broadcasting programs;

                            (iv)  the multicultural character of the Australian community; and

                             (v)  in connection with the provision of broadcasting programs of an educational nature—the responsibilities of the States in relation to education; and

                     (b)  the Corporation shall take all such measures, being measures consistent with the obligations of the Corporation under paragraph (a), as, in the opinion of the Board, will be conducive to the full development by the Corporation of suitable broadcasting programs.

             (3)  The functions of the Corporation under subsection (1) and the duties imposed on the Corporation under subsection (2) constitute the Charter of the Corporation.

             (4)  Nothing in this section shall be taken to impose on the Corporation a duty that is enforceable by proceedings in a court.

Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi, in his argument in favour of slashing the ABC’s funding to dust, seemed to suggest that the ABC is too successful. 

"The ABC now has 100 per cent radio and television market penetration and is starting to encroach upon the commercial media via what could be termed the newspapers of the 21st century.

"Their growing online news presence puts financial pressures on existing commercial media operators. Unless we can redress that, media diversity in Australia may suffer."

It’s a curious argument that the success of the public broadcaster is a threat to media diversity, and therefore a threat to the commercial success of such media behemoths as Murdoch’s News Corporation.

The difference between the purpose of the ABC and the purpose of any commercial media organisation is that one has a responsibility to Australians, while the other has a responsibility to its shareholders. Contrary to Senator Bernardi’s read of the situation, the ABC is doing exactly what it was commissioned to do: reach as many Australians as possible.

The issue of perceived bias has been hanging around the ABC for as long as I can remember, and often swings with – or more accurately, against – the current government, particularly if it’s a conservative government. According to a recent review conducted by respected veteran journalist and producerGerald Stone, the proportion of stories deemed to be ‘of concern’ is extremely low. 

For now at least, Australia has a public broadcasting network which boasts a reach of near 100% for its radio and television services, is widely thought to be impartial, and is thought by 85% of Australians to be “of value” to the community. 

Whether the cuts are made to programming or back office roles, where is the national upside in threatening the credibility or functionality of the organisation?

Newmania: Six Months Out

If a day is a long time in politics, the six or so months between now and the next Queensland election is an eternity. Weekend polling has the renascent ALP candidate Kate Jones sitting comfortably ahead of Premier Campbell Newman, while the latest Newspoll is positive for the LNP. Translated to an election result, Queensland would retain its LNP Government, but without figurehead Campbell Newman. 

Currently, the LNP hold Ashgrove with a 5.7% margin. In Queensland, in 2015, that’s probably small enough to class it as marginal, particularly in light of recent by-election swings of near 20% away from the LNP. 

Senior LNP QLD boss Bruce McIver must be feeling some stress, despite the stubborn insistence from a column of current ministers that their leader will win Ashgrove. Local Government Minister David Crisafulli, Racing Minister Steve Dickson, Tourism Minister Jann Stuckey, Education Minister John-Paul Langbroek and others all sang from the party hymn-sheet yesterday: voters can judge Mr Newman on his strong performance as premier blah blah blah. Even the Australian has Newman losing to the ALP’s Kate Jones, although that little prediction is buried in paragraph 4. 

But what happens to Campbell Newman if Ashgrove voters don’t like his track record of savage cuts to services, the arts, and environmental programmes, his antagonistic approach to problems with unions, bikies and security, and his perceived arrogance?

The reality that Campbell Newman might lose his seat is one that must be faced, regardless of what the LNP want to believe. If the LNP state bosses Bruce McIver and Gary Spence aren’t chained to a whiteboard right now, devising Plan B, they’re completely crackers.

The first item for the whiteboard should be determining just how important Campbell Newman is to the Queensland LNP. He was brought into state parliament to provide leadership into the 2012 election. After years in Opposition, and with a series of failed leaders behind them, the LNP needed a new leader with name recognition and a track record who could get them into Government. He’s done that.

Is he still useful to the party? His personal popularity has been sinking for most of his term as premier, and his lead over Opposition Leader Annastacia Palaszcuk as preferred Premier owes as much to Ms Palaszczuk’s blandness as it does to anything positive Newman may have done. Does the LNP still need Newman to lead them to victory?

The answer is probably yes, because without Newman, the LNP in Queensland is basically the same LNP that failed time and time again in opposition, albeit with a single term of governmental experience.

McIver and Co are certainly not afraid to parachute a candidate into a safe-ish seat, so should they move Newman out of Ashgrove now into a safer seat? . In fairness, Premier Newman himself has ruled out playing electoral hopscotch. He says he is committed to Ashgrove. 

On paper, a move is an option, but an option with consequences in the form of undecided voters who would see the move through cynical eyes. No electorate would not look fondly on a premier bumping an established local member to remain in power, and particularly not in a seat which was any distance from the Newman family home in inner-city Brisbane. There aren’t that many safe LNP seats close to centre of Brisbane from which to choose.

Just playing the hypothetical card for a moment, the most likely casualty in the event of a seat switch would still be Moggill, held by hapless former state Liberal leader Dr Bruce Flegg. Since the LNP came to power just two and a half years ago, Dr Flegg has attempted to fight off rumours that he continued practising as a GP while he was also Minister of Housing and Public Works. He’s also been engaged in very public spats with various members of his staff. It’s possible that the LNP might be glad to see the back of the negative headlines he generates.

Other candidates to step aside should Newman take up musical chairs may include Tracy Davis, currently Member for Aspley and Minister for Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services. Ms Davis’s single term in government hasn’t been smooth sailing either, with controversies around her daughter’s drug problems while working for yet another LNP Minister, Ros Bates.

The other possible shuffle would be Newman moving to Tim Nicholls’ seat of Clayfield, but it’s unlikely that the LNP would consider punting the Treasurer.

The red herring could be a move to Townsville where Campbell Newman’s experience as an Army man might work in the garrison town. The problem there is that the current member is John Hathaway, another former Army Officer, so any benefit would be negligible.

If Newman chooses to fight to Ashgrove, as he says he will, and he loses, the LNP must consider who is next in line to lead the state. The ReachTEL poll conducted over the past weekend asked the question about potential LNP leaders, but left Newman in the mix. The next most popular, after Campbell Newman, was Lawrence Springborg, who has lead the National Party to two electoral defeats in Queensland. A career politician from the National Party side of the LNP merger, he is unpopular in Brisbane, and the probability of Mr Springborg as potential Premier could cost the LNP several marginal seats in Brisbane. 

Other names to emerge from the ReachTEL poll were current Deputy Premier Jeff Seeney, Education Minister John-Paul Langbroek, Treasurer Tim Nicholls and Attorney General Jarrod Bleijie. Of the four also-rans, Langbroek fared best with 13.3%.

For now at least, the LNP seem to be backing Newman. It paid off last time, but the election is at least six months away. Six months out from the 2012 election, when ReachTEL conducted a similar poll in Ashgrove, Mr Newman’s primary vote was close to 20% ahead of Ms Jones. This time around, he doesn’t have that advantage. 

A Plan for the Future

It seems that the Queensland Government has a plan for the future. Right now, their plan for the future is to add the words “and a plan for the future” to their branding. The obvious question is “why” – and the only answer is to tie the Newman-led government’s branding to that of the LNP prior to the election campaign. The message is this government has the plan, so don’t change the government. 

The real advantage, though, is not only in the wording. The new branding will appear on official state government stationery, websites and even offices in the six month lead-up to the election. Regardless of how clever an opposition campaign might be, or how much money is spent to distribute it, it can’t compete with the government’s taxpayer-funded initiative.

It’s a smart, subtle tool to bolster the LNP vote, before the campaign proper has commenced.

Traditionally, state slogans have been vaguely descriptive, without any political governmental reference points. State slogans – as opposed to political slogans – are just a few words that appear on state letterheads, websites and licence plate to evoke images, memories and emotions. Victoria was The Garden State and The Place to Be, New South Wales used The First State, The Premier State and Towards 2000, South Australia was The Festival State and Tasmania’s most famous slogan was The Apple Isle. Note the absence of verbs.

In contrast, political slogans may be slightly longer and usually contain a statement of values or intent, an aspiration or an urge to action: Turn on the Lights (Federal Liberal campaign, 1975, after Whitlam dismissal), Keep the Bastards Honest (Democrats), Real Change for NSW (NSW 2011) and Go for Growth (Liberal/Howard).

The last Queensland election, in 2011, was a lopsided tussle between the LNP’s all-conquering “Can-Do” campaign, which completely overshadowed the party’s official “Time for Change” campaign, versus the Queensland Labor’s slogan, which despite being less than three years old, has been comprehensively forgotten.

The Queensland LNP is hoping their branding for 2015 won't be forgotten as quickly. According to the ABC, a spokesman for the Premier's Department confirmed that the addition to the government’s tagline is a deliberate attempt by the Newman government to move attention away from the past. 

"The additional line reflects this Government's strong plan for a bright future and reflects the state's 30 year vision for the state, the Queensland Plan," the spokesman said.

The unthinking spokesman also admitted that the new slogan is about the LNP Government, and not about the state of Queensland.

A spokesman for Premier Campbell Newman said the new catchphrase drew attention to the LNP's "strong plan" for Queensland.

After a cursory look at some Queensland government websites this morning, the enhanced tag line was nowhere to be seen. The Queensland Government’s extensive online guide to branding does not mention the new tagline, and was last updated 18 months ago.

Changing branding is always an expensive exercise – consider the hours involved in updating every page of every government website, the cost of reprinting every piece of printed material – from business cards to brochures to forms to letterhead and envelopes to posters – plus signage on buildings and building sites, departmental cars, asset labels, road signs…strictly speaking, everything which carries the logo would need to be changed. Because this change is officially a government change, taxpayers will pay, despite the benefit going to LNP’s re-election campaign.

This is the second change to state branding since the LNP government won power less than three years ago. The existing tag line “Great State. Great Opportunity.” was introduced shortly after the Newman government came to office, when they replaced the famous Beattie Burger logo with the traditional Queensland crest.

Early indications are that the 2015 Queensland election slogans will follow tradition. The LNP website homepage is perilously close to the new tagline being added to the state logo; the state branding omits the word “strong”, which must test well with LNP members – consider the recent “Strong Choices” market research exercise.

The ALP appears to favour the blandly generic “for Queenslanders”…which may have been the slogan used in 2012’s catastrophic loss to the Can-Do team. Who can remember? Palmer United Party’s “Bringing People Together” and “Reunite the Nation” vie for warm and fuzzy attention, and the Greens favour the predictable “Make a Difference for Tomorrow”. These slogans may all change during the next few months.

The one thing we know, six months out, is that the Newman LNP government has a plan for the future, and that plan is to win re-election in 2015.

Awesome! You found me!

It's time for a change, so buckle in. This new blog will continue to hurl into the blogosphere my thoughts about politicians, politics and the society we share with them. 

Politics isn't my whole life though, so I've allowed plenty of space for the other bits and pieces that interest me. Perhaps they'll interest you too: there's my recent project steering Wingham Sesquicentenary of Public Education celebrations, my thoughts on organisational change management (and other corporate-y things), my opinions on everything from movies to restaurants to books to airline seats, plus a host of short sharp thoughts that seem to form out of nothing and might be worth even less. 

Think of this blog as constantly evolving.

If you'd like to refer to one of my older OtDV posts, click the tab above at right, and if the technology is taking my instructions today, you'll be whisked there.

Welcome to the new Only the Depth Varies. Soon, there'll be something here to see. In the meantime, try not to lean on anything. The paint might still be wet.