By Peter Reid
Not content with having financially kneecapped the ABC, the Howard government now seems hell-bent on reducing the public broadcaster's role to a shadow of its former self as the controversial Mansfield inquiry begins in earnest after public submissions to the review closed on August 3l.
Both Labor and the Democrats have voiced scathing criticism of the review since it was set up in July to inquire into the ABC's operations and its future role.
Senator Chris Schacht, shadow communications minister, has blasted the review's terms of reference as "clearly aimed at destroying the independence of the ABC".
Castigating the government for massive cuts in ABC funding totalling $200 million over four years, Senator Vicki Bourne, the Democrats' broadcasting spokesperson, said the cutbacks "exposed the Coalition's dogged determination to rip the guts out of the ABC.
"By making it next to impossible for the ABC to adequately fulfil its Charter obligations, the cuts have effectively pre-empted recommendations of the Mansfield review."
The government's appointment of businessman Bob Mansfield to head the inquiry raised questions as to whether a former boss of the McDonald's fast-food chain, with no previous experience of broadcasting, was an ideal choice to conduct a review of the ABC. Mansfield was also a former chief executive of Optus and John Fairfax.
The review has also been condemned for the limited time — a mere four weeks — the public were given to tender written submissions.
Friends of the ABC in all states have called on the government to extend the period for submissions to September 30. The review's deliberations were being conducted in secret, the Friends claimed, and "it risks being seen as a Clayton's inquiry".
Mansfield's controversial decision to hold the inquiry behind closed doors may well dent the review's credibility. National Party MPs have echoed calls for a transparent inquiry with public hearings across Australia, particularly in rural areas.
"It's important to know what submissions led to what conclusions", said George Souris, the party's New South Wales deputy leader. Failure to conduct public hearings, he added, may reinforce a perception that the federal government had set up the review to reach a predetermined conclusion.
The ABC's newly appointed chairperson, Donald Macdonald, a close friend of the prime minister, has also urged Mansfield to hold public hearings. But Mansfield told ABC Radio he has no plans to do so because "they're pretty predictable as to what the outcome is. The public hearing forum presents a huge arena for emotion to dominate rather than fact. And if there's one thing this inquiry needs, it's facts."
Does intensity of feeling somehow devalue fact? Is a fact any less valid simply because it's enunciated with emotion? Doubtless the hundreds of written submissions the public have sent the review aren't short on fact. And what's wrong with a bit of fervour, anyway?
Cynics might say the federal government would prefer not to have public hearings since the proceedings would be open to media coverage, which would reflect the sort of deep-felt support shown for the ABC at Australia-wide rallies recently protesting against funding cuts.
But according to the review's secretariat, Mansfield made the decision of his own volition, independently of the government.
The Mansfield inquiry differs significantly from the last review of the ABC in the early l980s. For starters, the Dix inquiry wasn't conducted behind closed doors. Public hearings — nearly 50 in all — were held throughout Australia, not just in major centres but also in rural towns and remote communities.
Moreover, copies of all submissions, oral and written, were displayed for public perusal at libraries in all capital cities. The Mansfield review won't be following suit. Instead, submissions will be "comprehensively summarised" in the inquiry's report. To put them on public display, a review spokesperson said, would be "inappropriate in the circumstances".
The Dix inquiry comprised chairman Alex Dix, a company director, film producer Pat Lovell, Professor Alex Castles, formerly of Adelaide University, and Brian Sweeney, then chairperson of the Australia Council's theatre board.
By contrast, the Mansfield review seems largely a one-man band. It lacks, at present anyway, any regular input from broadcasting experts. The Dix inquiry had five consultants with expertise in different facets of ABC operations, plus a special adviser, Frank Gillard, former head of BBC Radio and consultant to the US Public Broadcasting Service.
Probably none of Australia's statutory bodies have been so thoroughly investigated and scrutinised as the ABC, which, since its inception in l932, has had more than 40 inquiries, including three royal commissions, involving aspects of the broadcaster's activities. In the l970s alone, there were 28 inquiries, most of them set up by Coalition governments.
Not surprisingly, some ABC staff and management have a distinct sense of deja vu as yet another probe gets under way.
Said a senior program-maker: "I and most of my colleagues welcome a review of what we're about, so long as the government really wants the ABC to improve what it does for the public good. We just hope the inquiry doesn't result in the government screwing the ABC for political reasons.'
Donald McDonald's backflip last week in opposing sponsorship or advertising on the public broadcaster, after his earlier refusal to rule it out, has heartened staff, who overwhelmingly oppose commercialisation of on-air programs.
But some staff and ABC supporters are dismayed by a questionable aspect of thousands of government information kits issued to the public seeking to make submissions to the inquiry. Individuals are told that in framing a written submission, they should have regard for the review's terms of reference, and that "you may also wish to address the following questions:
"l) What do you expect from the ABC?
"2) What ABC services and programs are most important to you?
"3) What don't you like about the ABC?
"4) What does the ABC do that could be done better?"
The first two questions seem quite impartial. But the others are negatively loaded, according to opinion pollsters and market researchers contacted at random. One of them said, "No self-respecting pollster would frame such biased questions if it was intended to elicit an impartial response".
They proposed the third question be re-phrased in a more balanced way: "Is there anything you don't like about the ABC?" Or, "What do you like/dislike about the ABC?" Similarly, the last question would be less loaded thus: "Is there anything the ABC does that could be done better?" Or, "Does the ABC do anything badly? What could it do better?"
Since the inquiry's terms of reference include having particular regard for impartiality in ABC news and current affairs programs, I thought Mansfield might care to cast an eye over those skewed questions. But he was unavailable. He's overseas for a fortnight on "other business".
"We don't accept the questions are biased, or that they could be better worded", said a review spokesperson. "It's a matter of interpretation. Framing of the questions was appropriate for our purpose."
What sort of fist Bob Mansfield makes of the review remains to be seen.
We won't have to wait long to find out. He's due to finish his report before Christmas. Certainly, his task hasn't been made any easier by the Howard government slashing ABC funding before the inquiry even began, giving the impression of virtually pre-empting the review.
It's anyone's guess whether the review will be seen as mainly a cost-cutting exercise resulting in a sadly diminished ABC — or a reshaped and enhanced national broadcaster better able to perform those core activities the public most value.
Either way, though, chances are the ABC as we know it won't ever be the same.
[Journalist and TV producer Peter Reid is chronicling the ABC's current woes in a forthcoming book, The ABC in Crisis.]