Malcolm Turnbull v Mark Scott: the battle for the ABC

Date
    October 17, 2014
    Sydney Morning Herald

Mark Scott is no rabble rouser. Past profiles of the ABC managing director have described him as "vanilla", "cautious", "dull", "bureaucratic", "not one to make waves".

In fact, behind the appearance of a chartered accountant is a man with strong opinions and a healthy dose of ego. But Scott's preferred style is to exercise power discreetly.

That approach worked well with the previous government, where Scott's lobbying convinced Labor to substantially increase funding for news, current affairs and Australian drama.


But his powers of persuasion haven't influenced the Abbott government. The ABC's budget was cut by $35.5 million over four years in the May budget, the Australia Network international broadcasting service was axed and deeper cuts are on the way.      


The battle for the ABC is on. And it's forced this backroom operator to flick the switch to hostile.

By Scott's standards, he gave a positively fire-and-brimstone sermon this week to the University of Melbourne. The speech came as a relief to many ABC workers, who had been grumbling that he had been too passive in the face of government aggression.

Scott started by reminding the audience that the government had broken a clear pre-election pledge not to cut the ABC. He then warned that slashing the ABC's budget carries political risk: "Perhaps one of the greatest lessons of the ABC's history is that while governments have come and gone, public affection and respect for the ABC has lasted and prevailed."

And he described as "mythical" the argument that the ABC can absorb deep cuts without programming being affected.

This was a clear riposte to Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull who in a blog post last month said he would not accept the blame for any unpopular programming decisions – such as the axing of Peppa Pig or Lateline.

"Suggestions that popular programs or services are at risk because of budget savings are not credible," Turnbull wrote.

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

Indeed, an efficiency study commissioned by Turnbull earlier this year has identified $60 million worth of ongoing back-office savings at the ABC.

And many mooted programming changes - such as axing state-based current affairs television - are being driven by management's desire to make the ABC more relevant to modern audiences. Boosting investment in the ABC's mobile and online services - Scott's top priority - would require cuts elsewhere in the organisation even if government funding remained steady.

But Scott was right to argue that there is no "magic formula" for ripping massive amounts of money out of the ABC without affecting content. The government's own efficiency study found the ongoing savings would be offset by $75 million in one-off implementation costs - including redundancy pay-outs.

"[I]f the government refuses to fund those transition costs, then it's going to be some time before any savings can be realised," he said this week. "Meanwhile, the only alternative will be to cut content dramatically."      

One of the most discussed programming changes - the axing of Lateline - is now off the cards. There has been speculation that the ABC was bluffing about its possible demise to maximise political damage for the government. Fairfax Media understands that is not the case: management was prepared to kill off the program but boardroom and staff resistance scuttled this option.