GOVERNMENT REPORT
EXAMINING THE ROLE OF RADIO AUSTRALIA
Evidence presented to the Committee revealed that the appropriate role
of Australian international broadcasting services have been the subject
of continual inquiry, review and debate for some considerable period
of time.
In the 1980s RA was criticised by a number of experienced commentators.
These included Sir Arthur Tange, (former Secretary of the both the Defence
department and Department of Foreign Affairs) Mr William Prichett (a
former secretary of the Defence department) and Mr Malcom Booker
(First Assistant Secretary under Tange), who:
- stated that an international radio service operating on the premise
of journalistic freedom was extremely questionable;
- queried the cost effectiveness of RA's operations;
- stated that Australian taxpayers, in their view, were being tricked
into supporting, as Mr Pritchett put it, 'a small independent bureaucracy
of journalists'. [1]
In 1988, all three made explicit statements to that effect, also querying
the cost effectiveness of RA's operations. Australian taxpayers, in their
view, were being tricked into supporting, as Mr Pritchett put it, 'a small
independent bureaucracy of journalists'. [2]
For Mr Booker, it was this group who, by their naive insistence on a 'warts
and all' approach to overseas reporting, caused regional disharmony and
embarrassment to Australia. In an interview he later concluded: 'You can't
engender good will by exposing the deficiencies of your neighbours and
their governments. If you want to engender good will, it's a highly expert
propaganda exercise.' [3]
Mr Booker was also of the view that, it was this group who, by their
naive insistence on a 'warts and all' approach to overseas reporting,
caused regional disharmony and embarrassment to Australia. At interview
he later concluded: 'You can't engender goodwill by exposing the deficiencies
of your neighbours and their governments. If you want to engender goodwill,
it's a highly expert propaganda exercise.' [4]
Sir Arthur Tange saw that a possible, but qualified, reason for continued
RA services could lie:
…in the circumstances in which Australian official policy
or the conduct of Australian diplomacy, the conduct of Australian
defence relations, was impeded by ignorance abroad, in societies with
whose governments we were dealing, of Australian motivations and intentions
- was impeded by misunderstandings such as we had, to use an historical
analogy, of Australia's white Australia policy: that certainly was
an obstacle 20 or 30 years ago.
He, nevertheless, concluded:
I doubt today that we have those obstacles residing in the minds
of countries with which we do official business. So the question arises:
why do we need Radio Australia? [5]
Mr Campbell also gave evidence criticising the content of much of the
recent public debate that has revolved around the issue of Radio Australia's
future:
"[M]uch of the material in the defence of Radio Australia
that I have read on the public record seems to me to be more descriptive
than anything else. It is rather anecdotal and obviously it involves
a degree of special pleading. It is more an account of what Radio Australia
has done and what Radio Australia might do in the future. But I would
not regard a lot of it as being particularly analytical". [6]
Government Senators concur with these sentiments, both in relation
to much of the public debate which has surrounded this issue and to
much of the evidence which was presented by witnesses at the Committee
hearings, which was often lacking in rigorous analysis.
Mr Duncan Campbell, expressed views questioning some of the commonly
held notions about RA and ATV. He commented that these views were supported
by many of his former diplomatic colleagues. [7]
He also stated that as a result of the announcement of the changes to
RA and ATV:
I do feel that probably the debate itself has been nobbled by
the telegraphing of the punch. In other words, I suspect that if the
debate had been able to be conducted on an open-ended basis, there might
well have been more people weighing in on my side of things. I simply
have the feeling that, since the news does look fairly serious for Radio
Australia, that in itself has been a restraining influence on people
coming forward with further arguments. [8]
Intrusiveness of service
The Radio Australia function vis-a-vis the target countries of
the regions it serves was initially, in my view, deliberately intrusive.
Yet nowadays the explanation that I hear seems to be a much more gentle
and benign one than that. I think one has to ask the question: at what
point did it ever cease to be intrusive simply because the hot war,
in which it grew up, and the Cold War period, in which it then was so
active, passed? At what point after that did the function actually change?
At what point did it become, as it were, permissible to indulge in a
largely propaganda performance? [9]
Intrusiveness is not justified by the argument that we have to go on
competing with the other countries that provide this sort of service into
our close-in regions: 'By and large, those countries are former imperial
and colonial powers and I think the question is invited: is this a function
which modern day Australia, with the aims it has for itself in this part
of the world, really wants to maintain? Is it a function which is really
redolent of a degree of cultural superiority?' [10]
Mr Campbell went on to say that Australia could build a modern, equal,
contemporary relationship with some of these countries, which is more
soundly based if 'we were to subtract this interventionist activity which
... I do believe comes complete with an element of cultural superiority
attached to it'. [11]
In answering a question about the freedom of the Australian media vis-a-vis
that of some other countries in the region, Mr Campbell, while noting
that the citizens of those countries have access to another version of
events, stated 'Just as important, I make the less than popular argument
that it is not necessarily our God-given right, role or responsibility
to differ from the sovereign policy of the government concerned'. [12]
Information provided by RA
In relation to the news and the information provided, Mr Campbell noted:
- Unesco has been highly critical of 'world news', as it has been seen
as a near monopoly of the industrialised world, not an objective body
of information, either in its selection or presentation - what makes
Australian made news any different? [13]
- there is something of a 'non-democratic presumption in a service such
as Radio Australia seeking to offer its version of events, it selection
of topics and its interpretation'; [14]
- in evaluating what is achieved by the news service, if it is non-contentious
and not subject to resistance by regional governments, then it can
be assumed that it will be available anyway and 'I think the rating
of what we are achieving for an uncontentious projection would be
a very generous zero', if it is resisted by regional governments,
then the rating 'has obviously got to be a minus', thus:
What we are doing is constantly trying to enlist the support
and the cooperation of those governments. So I think, on that, as I
say, simplistic but not altogether misleading rating system, if you
look at what it is we are trying to achieve in inserting our news, you
would have to come to a zero to minus assessment,somewhere in between.
[15]
- that other English language broadcasts are available and that these
are not sufficiently different or foreign in nature as to present a
problem to present RA listeners. [16]
Are there really benefits?
In evaluating the performance of RA, Mr Campbell presented the following
points:
on some news days we would have done better without Radio Australia's
contribution. The Radio Australia news, examined day after day, has projected
a number of negatives about our economic and social situations and performance,not
necessarily in an untruthful way but without guidance as to national benefit
or with some misguidance. [17]
- RA has constantly headlined unemployment levels, industrial disputes,
discouraging economic statistics - exactly the same as the domestic
media. RA should not distort the news but it should be more selective:
'I believe that by and large Radio Australia did not play it,presumably
for reasons of high minded journalism'. [18]
- 'damage can be done to our national interest when Radio Australia,
by presenting a regional issue, has earned us the animosity of regional
governments. Basically, that can be justified only vis-a-vis a regime
to which we are already hostile, and such targets are in fact too limited
to warrant mounting an operation simply on that account'. [19]
- when the private media earns Australia the dislike and resentment
of one or more regional governments, 'Radio Australia tends to be lumped
into their sights, anyway, because it is simply seen as part of the
Australian media. There is too great a tendency, in my view, for Radio
Australia,sometimes through no fault of its own,to be just another brake
on our diplomacy and another source of resistance to the sort of progress
we might be seeking to achieve.' [20]
What should be projected and how?
In canvassing what should be promoted, Mr Campbell listed four things:
'our values, our views, our goods and our services'. [21]
Mr Campbell asserted that the visual media has is the most effective
means for this. [22] He noted:
It is simply that television is increasingly the path of the
future, for the great majority of information. I cannot be statistical
and hard about this, but it would be surprising to know the number of
small towns, villages, and so forth, scattered throughout Asia where
there is at least one television set. It is a focal point of attention,
interest and receipt of information and influence. [23]
And:
As for the Asian target area, the challenge is to attach ourselves
to and to penetrate the visual channels to which audiences in Asian
countries are already tuned. I think the emphasis must shift from trying
to be the messenger to the content and the purpose of the message. [24]
Mr Campbell pointed in particular to the effectiveness of television
in the promotion of trade, and that it appeared that in our diplomacy,
'markets, selling our goods, selling our services, opening ourselves to
investment and making way for possible Australian investment overseas'
is increasingly 'what we are about'. [25]
Is there a role for RA?
Mr Campbell stated:
I think possibly a simple English and French language information
service focused particularly on intraregional matters could usefully
be supplied by elements of Radio Australia, but under the purview of
the clients, perhaps as a service controlled by the South Pacific Forum,
and with some modest funding contributed by regional countries as well
as Australia. No doubt a small rump activity of Radio Australia, with
some of their personnel, could continue as an aid function with some
regional audience control and contribution. In other words, I think
there is a case for looking at the future of Radio Australia vis-a-vis
the Pacific very separately from the future of Radio Australia vis-a-vis
its other target areas. [26]
He added:
... I do think that some expert Radio Australia resources could
now be transferred to ABC production capacity and dedicated to producing
material with sales potential in our region. This might usefully be
backed up by some federal bonus payments to Australian TV production
facilities,ABC or otherwise,and to those who succeed in placing material
judged beneficial to our sales and our standing in the target countries
which are of relevance to us from the foreign trade, defence, cultural
and Asian policy points of view. [27]
Costs of RA and ATV
RA is budget-funded, with the total cost in 1996-97 estimated at $20.5
million ($13.5 million from the ABC and $7 million from the National
Transmission Agency).
The previous government had agreed to provide funding of $6.2 million
per year for the operation of RA for three years commencing in 1996-97
with ATV seeking extra funding from advertising and sponsorship. The ABC
was requested by the current government 'to explore the possibility of
delivering the ATV service more efficiently by entering its operation
to the commercial sector'. [28]
Comments on the future of RA and ATV
With regard to RA, Mr Mansfield stated that he endorsed the governments
decision to request the ABC to explore tendering ATV operations to the
commercial sector, pointing to the more than 100 satellite TV channels
operating in Asia and concluding 'I do not consider that the ABC should
be allocated funding to enable it to operate competitively in the Asian
market'. He went on to add that if no commercial alternative could be
found the service should be closed. [29]
Mr Mansfield noted that the ABC Charter accords overseas broadcasting
equal priority with domestic broadcasting and concluded that he did
not believe 'that there are compelling reasons for this to continue'.
He pointed out the ABC's 1997-98 funding allocation may not allow it
to maintain the range of both domestic services and overseas broadcasting
services and that the ABC was also faced with a requirement to downsize
and to invest in new technology. If the overseas broadcasting service
was to be maintained it would be at the expense of domestic services.
While accepting that the future of overseas broadcasting has a foreign
affairs dimension, and that the significant role of overseas services
in promoting trade and diplomatic objectives was noted by DFAT in its
submission to the review, Mr Mansfield concluded that 'I have some difficulty
in identifying the extent to which the ABC plays such a role and, if it
does, the extent to which it is effective in doing so'. [30]
In coming to this conclusion, Mr Mansfield pointed out two matters:
first, that only broad objectives for the ABC's overseas broadcasting
activities are identified in the ABC Charter; and secondly, that the
ABC possesses statutory independence in relation to the way it carries
out its function. Unlike the BBC World Service, the ABC it is not required
to accept DFAT's views or any other policy directions of the Government.
Thus, Mr Mansfield concluded 'in the absence of such agreement concerning
objectives and priorities, it is difficult to evaluate the effectiveness
of funding or to revise priorities for overseas broadcasting services,
particularly for RA'.
Further matters noted by Mr Mansfield were:
- the decline in RA's potential short-wave audience from an estimated
100 million in 1981 to 20 million in 1996;
- that there needs to be a reordering of priorities to enable RA to
provide more effective services to its more significant audience or
enable it to exploit other delivery platforms;
- four of RA's language services (Khmer, Cantonese, French, Thai)
provide less that one and a half hour's programming a day and Mansfield
noted 'it is not clear why these services have continued to operate
at such marginal levels';
- that there was insufficient evidence for the Government to draw
firm conclusions whether RA's programmes were reaching the target
audience; whether the type and mix of programming remains valid; and
whether short wave remains the most cost-effective means of delivery
and that for more than $20 million per year the Government should
be able to be in a position do this;
- that DFAT saw shortcomings in both RA's and ATV's current services,
as it had submitted that 'neither is presently meeting its full potential
and restructuring is necessary to address their shortcomings'.
Mr Mansfield did consider that if the Government wished to maintain
an overseas broadcasting service, its funding be considered in the context
of the public diplomacy effort as is the case in the UK. The ABC should
not have the provision of services to audiences outside Australia as
a priority in its Charter.
Recommendation 18 of the Mansfield report stated:
- that the requirement of the ABC to broadcast programs to audience
outside Australia should cease;
- that the ABC should retain the ability to transmit programs outside
Australia if it choses;
- that the ABC should be permitted to apply net saving from the closure
of Radio Australia to the achievement of its savings target - this
should include any transmission savings, consistent with the Government's
commitment to fund the ABC directly for its transmission costs; and
- that if an appropriate commercial arrangement for the operation
of Australian Television is not entered into before June 1997, the
service should be closed down.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Downer, is on the public record
as confirming the importance that the Government attaches to the continuation
of aspects of Radio Australia from a foreign policy perspective. The
following statements were contained in a letter from Mr Downer to Senator
Alston relating to Radio Australia:
The significance of RA, especially its news services to the
South Pacific and Eastern Indonesia, should not be underestimated.
In the South Pacific the strong listenership of RA and the re-broadcasting
of RA services on domestic radio has established Australia as the
prime regional news hub...
[W]hile I support a rigorous reassessment of Radio Australia
from the budget savings perspective, I believe a whole-of-government
view needs to be taken of any decision to wind up or revise the service,
including to seek a different funding source...[and] to make sure that
any alternatives that are considered to the current broadcasting arrangements
take into account our Government's overall diplomatic objectives. [31]
The Minister for Communications and the Arts, Senator Alston, has also
made a number of public statements confirming the strong commitment
of the Government to maintaining the Radio Australia service wherever
possible within the Budget context. Responding to a question in the
Senate relating to Radio Australia, Senator Alston stated:
It's clearly a matter of concern, Madam President, that we don't
unnecessarily dispense with services and that other options are explored.
And I've no doubt the ABC will be having a close look at the effectiveness
of this particular service. [32]
A range of submissions to this inquiry and the Mansfield inquiry emphasised
the importance of Australia's proximity to Asia. This view can best
be paraphrased by the West Australian Government's submission to the
Mansfield inquiry, in which it was stated:
Radio Australia provides an important service, principally to
the Asia-Pacific region. Its role is related primarily to our foreign
affairs interests. Thus Radio Australia should be funded through the
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade which would set up priorities
and contract out provisions of the service to the ABC/NTA. Such an arrangement
would give clear expression of the reason for existence of the service
and avoid muddying the waters of the ABC budget but take advantage of
the ABC's skills in this area and the synergy between this and the ABC
core services. [33]
Footnotes
[1] W. B. Prichett, letter to the editor,
Sydney Morning Herald, 13 August 1988.
[2] W. B. Prichett, letter to the editor,
Sydney Morning Herald, 13 August 1988.
[3] Recorded interview with Booker, Canberra
, 20 March 1989.
[4] Recorded interview with Booker, Canberra
, 20 March 1989.
[5] Recorded interview with Tange, reported
in Hodge, Radio Wars, Chapter 12, p. 252.
[6] Hansard, p. 338 (Tues 15 April, 1997,
Sydney).
[7] Committee Hansard, p. 343.
[8] Committee Hansard, p. 345.
[9] Committee Hansard, p. 339.
[10] Committee Hansard, p. 339.
[11] Committee Hansard, p. 344, see
also p. 347.
[12] Committee Hansard, p. 349.
[13] Committee Hansard, p. 339.
[14] Committee Hansard, p. 339.
[15] Committee Hansard, p. 340.
[16] Committee Hansard, p. 347.
[17] Committee Hansard, p. 340.
[18] Committee Hansard, pp 340-41.
[19] Committee Hansard, p. 341.
[20] Committee Hansard, p. 341.
[21] Committee Hansard, p. 341.
[22] Committee Hansard, pp 341, 345.
[23] Committee Hansard, p. 364.
[24] Committee Hansard, p. 342.
[25] Committee Hansard, p. 345.
[26] Committee Hansard, p. 342.
[27] Committee Hansard, p. 342.
[28] Mansfield Report, p. 41.
[29] Mansfield Report, p. 41.
[30] Mansfield Report, p. 41.
[31] Letter from Mr Downer to Senator Alston,
2 February 1997.
[32] Senate Hansard, 5 February 1997,
p.135.
[33] West Australian Government submission
to Mansfield Report, 1996