ABC, SBS told to be more transparent

Australian pubcasters the ABC and SBS should be more open about their business activities but are broadly meeting their “competitive neutrality obligations,” according to a report released today.

Mitch Fifield

Communications and arts minister Mitch Fifield, who released the expert panel’s report on the balance between Australia’s public and private broadcasters, said international operators were affecting the market.

“The panel recognised all media organisations are operating in an environment of heightened competitive pressure, driven by changes in the way audiences engage and the entry of global companies into the Australian media market,” Fifield said.

The panel found broadcasters were applying a “best endeavours” approach to meet competitive neutrality requirements but recommended they improve their transparency, reporting and other processes relating to their competitive activities and charter performance.

It also recommended that the ABC and SBS give greater guidance on how they take account of other media market participants. Fifield said the charters of both networks meant it would now be “up to the national broadcasters to act on these recommendations.”

Earlier this year the Aussie government appointed Robert Kerr (former head of office at the Productivity Commission), Julie Flynn (former CEO of Free TV Australia, which represents Oz free-to-air broadcasters) and Sandra Levy AO (former Director of ABC TV) to undertake the inquiry and determine whether the national broadcasters were operating in a manner consistent with the general principles of competitive neutrality.

Bridget Fair, CEO of Free TV, welcomed the conclusion of the panel “that changes should be made to increase the transparency of the business activities of the ABC and SBS.”

Bridget Fair

However, she added: “While the panel has identified the issues, they have not adequately set out the governance changes needed to address these shortcomings.

“We have consistently said we stand with all Australians who want strong, vibrant and distinctive national broadcasters. However, we do not believe the panel gave sufficient weight to the evidence provided by the commercial sector of competitive neutrality issues associated with recent investment and programming decisions of the ABC and SBS.”

Fair said Free TV was also disappointed that no changes were recommended regarding differences in the regulatory regimes applying to ABC/SBS and commercial broadcasters.

“Given that regulatory neutrality is a central tenet of competitive neutrality, we would have expected to see a more detailed consideration of these issues within the panel’s report,” she said.

“The panel has also correctly identified the difficulties with accountability in the absence of a charter complaints-handling mechanism and the need for greater transparency around how the ABC and SBS approach fair competition.

“In Free TV’s original submission, we proposed a new regulatory oversight model based on one already operating in the UK with respect to the BBC. This model has provided greater transparency around BBC investment decisions, without negatively impacting on its day-to-day operations. We believe this approach is worthy of further consideration.”

The inquiry received a total of 6,839 submissions from members of the public, commercial media, industry stakeholders and the national broadcasters themselves.