This page is still under construction.  It does not contain a full list.

Funding cuts to the ABC

Extract from the SENATE HANSARD
Date: 10 September 1996 (07:37) Page: 3123

Senator LUNDY (Australian Capital Territory) (7.48 p.m.)--Madam President, congratulations on your appointment. My contribution to tonight's adjournment debate deals specifically with cuts to the ABC. I want to begin by reading three quotes from coalition policy documents:

The Coalition will maintain existing levels of Commonwealth funding to the ABC.

The ABC must be an independent, truly national, publicly funded broadcaster devoted to excellence and objectivity and offering a clear alternative to the commercial broadcasting sector.

We will encourage and support the ongoing expansion of ABC Radio, including the extension of the highly successful Triple J network into regional Australia.

These are fine and noble sentiments, are they not?

In an exchange between Jim Middleton and Senator Alston on March 2, Middleton said:
". . . the ABC and the commitment to maintain funding in real terms over the term of the coming Parliament. Does that stand?"

Senator Alston's reply to that was:
"Absolutely."

Middleton went on to say:
"Even if you discover on Monday the budget's bottom line is much worse that the government's been saying?"

Senator Alston replied to that:
"Oh yes. I think John Howard's made it very plain that we want to maintain--honour--all our commitments and the ABC is a very important part of that."

These were all pre-election promises from the coalition. Less than six months later we saw Senator Alston, now minister for the ABC, fearlessly take back all those promises by announcing a $55 million cut to the ABC's 1997-98 budget and the establishment of the Mansfield review into the management functions of the ABC, against all of their pre-election promises.

More and more I fear we are moving into the twilight zone with this government. Ten per cent or $55 million sounds eerily like one of their 1993 Fightback policies--surprise, surprise! Fightback contained a 10 per cent or $50 million cut to the ABC. The budget has since seen a cutting of $209 million over the next four years.

In a betrayal of voters' trust, Fightback policies have been resurfacing at every turn. Whether it is differential HECS, cuts to the public sector or cuts to labour market programs, it all comes straight from the 1993 Fightback policies. The government seems to be caught in a time warp. On 3 March this year, Senator Alston did not wake up to find himself transported back to 1993. It is now 1996. Australians rejected those Fightback policies and, as a result, the coalition was forced to reinvent itself with a new package of policies and a new set of promises.

Back in 1993, those policies were rejected in the context of what I am talking about. Australians believe in the ABC and support the ABC. It is not surprising that rallies calling to save the ABC attract tens of thousands of people. The ABC feeds the spirit of Australians. It is an essential part of our culture and to cut that funding is, in a sense, to have some of our dignity stripped away.

The ABC has been instrumental in developing and sustaining our cultural identity for decades that extend beyond my lifetime. I believe the ABC is one of Australia's most important cultural institutions. It is not only a trendsetter but also a trail blazer. It is only through the predominance of quality ABC Australian drama that the commercial stations have taken the course of making quality commercial Australian drama now available around the world.

Science programs like Towards 2000 were ABC originals. They were so good that they got cut in this government's budget. Consumer programs and Australian made comedies started on the ABC. We have opera and concert simulcasts. Triple J unearths Australian music in regional areas, giving young bands a fair go and an opportunity to extend themselves. That would never have happened on commercial radio; now it will not happen on Triple J.

Who but the ABC reports on the height of the Darling River and cattle and sheep prices? It keeps regional Australia connected with their urban counterparts, with their businesses and with their environment. The ABC sets the standards and the rest follow. Without a well-funded national broadcaster, the quality of Australian production will fall, leaving all broadcasting in Australia in an unhealthy situation.

In 1993 when the coalition first raised the prospect of cutting 10 per cent off the ABC's budget, ABC management was claiming that it would see the sacking of at least 1,500 people, a reduction in Australian content, closure of state-based production, cuts to transmission hours, cessation of specialist programs like the rural, religious, science and arts programs and the abolition of some regional services to Australia.

Like every other part of the public service, the ABC has been undergoing efficiency and productivity restructuring. About 80 per cent of the ABC's budget is spent on buying and making radio and television programs. So a cut of $209 million over four years will affect programming as well as personnel.

But the government has not just cut the ABC's budget; it has established yet another inquiry into its role and functions to redefine and reposition the ABC for the 21st century. This comes from the very same man--now the minister--who last year chaired a Senate inquiry which found the ABC's basic structure to be quite sound and worthy of its then levels of funding.

What is the real intention of the government? Is it motivated by economic indicators or blatant ideology? Will John Howard go down in history as the man who killed off Big Ted, put UnEarthed six foot under, put the Bananas in the dole queue with the dole diary for a partner and applied the gag to some of the ABC's political commentary and current affairs reporting?

The Mansfield review is the government's attempt to dictate changes to ABC management and programming. What is at stake? Where is the independence? We cannot allow this review to marginalise the ABC, providing only specialised programs for a small section of the community. That would be its death knell.

We want quality and excellence in production, not just B-grade re-runs from our public broadcaster. The efforts of commercial broadcasting to educate, inform and even entertain will always be contingent upon their reliance on sponsorship and advertising. Surveys have shown that 80 per cent of Australians tune in to the ABC at some time. Of course, it is not the only radio and TV that we watch, but independent broadcasting is all about providing choice to all Australians. And it is that choice that we need to defend.

Selling-out Unemployed People

Extract from the SENATE HANSARD
Date: 10 September 1996 (17.08)  Page: 3105

Senator LUNDY(Australian Capital Territory) (5.09 p.m.)--I rise also to speak in support of Senator Bolkus's proposition regarding this government's abrogation of responsibility to the unemployed in this country.

Last month I was privileged to be officiating at a graduation of the ACT's first construction industry jobtrain course for the long-term unemployed. It was run by the Construction Industry Training and Employment Association and it was funded by DEETYA. The trainees were aged from 22 to 38, some having been unemployed for a period longer than two years. They are the people that this government has abandoned. They are the ones that this government has given up on.

This program was a major step in getting these people back into the work force. The jobtrain program is aimed at the future building and construction workers here in the ACT. Four of those trainees from that program already have a job and three of them are getting a job next week. Is that what I see as people being churned through, Senator Tierney? I notice he has now left the chamber. Is that the useless program that he is describing, where we have seen a transition with these people going through a program and getting a job at the end of it? Seven employers have been prepared to give these people jobs. We are talking about real jobs in the private sector in small business.

This program has now been abandoned. It has been abolished by this government and those opportunities will no longer exist. Unfortunately, at the time of conducting this presentation to the graduates of this jobtrain program, I alluded to the fact that I was fearful that this government would unfund and abandon this program. We have seen that occur through this budget. To me that is not a relaxed and comfortable approach. It is certainly not relaxed and comfortable for the many workers who may have benefited from that program. They will now not have the opportunity to even give it a go and get a look in at getting a job in building and construction.

John Howard and this budget have absolutely ripped the guts out of this program. By his actions he is denying the opportunity for people to get off the dole and back into the work force. The message that this government is sending is that they do not care. This is after an election campaign where we saw `jobs, jobs, jobs' written all over the coalition's election slogans, banners and so forth. Do you think we can have too many jobs in sight in Canberra? Not only has this private sector program that was creating real jobs in in small business gone, but we have seen the cuts impact hugely upon our local community here. We have seen it impact to the point where thousands upon thousands of people are losing their jobs.

The labour market programs that I have been describing, like the one that CITEA was running, keep unemployed people employable. When the jobs become available these programs make sure that the people are there to fit into them. No-one can deny that 80 per cent of long-term unemployed people who have been employed came through a program funded through Working Nation.

According to Senator Vanstone, labour market programs like this one are a waste of money. Let me see Senator Vanstone say to these seven people who have benefited from this program and are now in paid employment--either through an apprenticeship or a traineeship in scaffolding, concreting or steel fixing--that that exercise was a waste of money.

This government has not even bothered to set targets. A number of my colleagues have alluded to the fact that they are pretty big on setting economic targets but pretty small and, in fact, non-existent on setting employment targets. This afternoon we have heard a number of government senators talk a lot about what Labor did and did not do in government. The fact that their focus has been on what has happened before epitomises their whole approach. They are a government that is living in the past. They are not concerned about giving Australians a future. The abandonment of jobtrain as a classic and tangible example of what they are all about shows that they do not care about the unemployed.

The PRESIDENT--Order! The time for this debate has expired.

Being elected to the Senate

South Australian State Schools Convention
Thursday 8 August 1996 Adelaide
South Australian Chapter of the Constitutional Centenary Foundation

I am an ALP senator representing the Australian Capital Territory in the Senate.   At 28 years old, I have the dubious honour to be the youngest Labor woman ever elected to Parliament.

I hope I will be moved on out of the history books shortly by a younger woman. I know that politicians can be rather boring speakers but seeing I have only been a senator for five months I hope this description will not apply to me.

I was asked to talk about myself today as a young person in Parliament, which is a little indulgent, but nonetheless I shall talk about the type of people who make up the Australian Senate, reflect on my background and how I got elected, and finally what that means for you today.

There are presently 23 women and 53 men in the Australian Senate.

The youngest Senator is 27 years of age while the oldest is 66.

The average age of a senator is 49 years of age. The average age of a person elected to the senate is 41.

If you look at Australian society, the percentage of the population under thirty is 44.1 per cent.

The percentage of Senators under the age of thirty is only 2.6 per cent, only one other senator other than myself is under thirty.

Indeed, there are only seven senators who were born in the 1960s - all except two are Labor Senators.

So as you can see the Senate is not particularly reflective of Australian society.

So how did someone like me - a member of two minority groups in the senate - a woman aged under thirty - get elected to the Senate?

It was probably because those two characteristics worked in my favour.

It might be a good time to have a look at my background.

I left school when I was 16. Being bored at school and attracted to the idea of earning some money, I left school and became a builder's labourer.

The only job I'd had before then was a part-time job serving at the local McDonalds.

The manager stood at my shoulder timeing how long it took me to serve a customer while hissing at me to smile more often.

I stumbled around spilling drinks and screwing up the change. I lasted one and a half hours before I walked out thoroughly disgusted.

I didn't become a builder's labourer for any feminist desire to buck the system because I didn't know there was any system to buck.

I applied for the job because the pay seemed like a million dollars to a 16 year old.

The union that covered workers in the construction industry, the BWIU, actively encouraged the recruitment of women into the industry and provided a supportive environment for a shy teenager.

The Labor Government had also introduced the Sex Discrimination legislation the previous year, so my employer was not entitled to refuse to take me on just because I was female.

Not that I knew that at the time.

The company I worked for demolished buildings and removed asbestos.

I quickly worked out that employers only care about themselves which wasn't particularly favourable working in a potentially dangerous workplace.

So I joined the union to protect my rights and later became the union delegate - the union representative in my workplace.

Two years later I left the site and joined the union as a full-time organiser.

At the age of 18, I found myself addressing 400 building workers debating industrial issues.

My first couple of years at the union were a steep learning curve. But my colleagues there were prepared to teach me.

It was a challenge but it left me with the feeling that I could tackle anything.

In 1989 I ran for the position of Vice-President of the ACT branch of the BWIU and won.

I was the first female elected official in the union in Australia.

It was also my first exposure to the media.

From there my career seemed to take off.

I was elected to the executive of the ACT Trades and Labour Council followed by being elected to the position of President in 1993 again being the youngest and first woman elected to this position.

As the head of the union movement in the ACT, I was appointed to several boards and committees ranging from health and safety, health promotion, cultural heritage and regional economic development.

Which brings me to last year. When the Labor Senator for the ACT announced his intention to resign, there were people who looked to me to fill the spot.

I had joined the ALP in 1987 when I was 18. I could have joined the Party at 15 but at that age politics was the furtherest thing from my mind.

I certainly wouldn't have been attending a Schools State Convention like yourself.

It wasn't until I had joined the workforce that I felt the need to get involved politically and I saw the ALP as the only party who would effectively represent me as a young working woman.

I got involved in Young Labor, which is the youth wing of the ALP, and held various positions in my local branch.

At no stage was age a barrier for me in the Party.

When I was approached with the idea to run for the Senate, it took me some time to agree.

I had just given birth to my second child and time away from my two girls was not attractive. I know it sounds corny but I decided to run because I really thought I could make a difference.

I thought a young working mother, as I am, would be an interesting addition to the Senate.

I also think that people are looking for something different in their politicians.

I was selected as a candidate in a vote of all ALP members in the ACT and thankfully, six months later the voters of the ACT endorsed the ALP's decision and voted me into the Senate on March 2 this year.

So where does my experience leave you and politics in Australia? There are two points I wish to make.

Firstly, I had no claim on the senate position simply because I was a woman or simply because I was young.

But I would be dishonest if I said that being a young woman did not assist me in reaching the senate.

My gender and age may have brought me into the spotlight but it was my ability that kept me there.

I had proven myself in a difficult arena as a female union official in the building industry.

Union members are quick to punish incompetent officials so I had to perform and deliver to my members.

Because of this, I was considered as a possibility for Senator. My gender and my age made the package even more attractive.

Secondly, I am now a Senator because I was a competent young woman for whom opportunities arose.

At several stages through my career there were people who were prepared to take a risk with me.

The ALP, and the union movement before it, is actively supporting young people and women.

I would not be here today if at 16, legislation and the union movement hadn't opened the doors for women to enter the construction industry.

And I see this as the key - opening doors and ripping them off their hinges.

When I was a union official, I always believed that other women wanted to work in non-traditional areas like the construction industry and my job as a union official was to remove the barriers that stopped them through education, positive strategies and importantly, convincing women that they could do it.

The same applies to politics.

There have been many women through the doors of the senate and even though I never knew Dorothy Tangney who was born in 1911 , her work as the first woman elected to the Senate, helped me as I hope my election will help you.

Now that I am in the senate, I am judged on my work and not my age.

But through my work I can prove that young people can make good politicians so that at some stage in the future someone much younger than 28 can make history in the senate.

No matter how corny it sounds, my message comes down to this.

If you feel you can make a difference, get involved in politics.

Be confident in your own abilities.

Welcome the challenges and take the opportunities as they arise, or simply make your own. And only when being the youngest or the first is no longer news worthy, can we take a breather and think that we may have achieved something here.