EMBARGO: 6 P. M.
SPEECH BY THE PRIME MINISTER, MR. E. G. WHITLAM, M. P.,
AT THE OPENING CEREMONY AT THE NEW A. B. C. BUILDING COMPLEX,
COLLINSWOOD, ADELAIDE, FRIDAY 29 MARCH 1974
It is almost 42 years since the Australian Broadcasting
Commission was founded with the requirement that it " shall
broadcast from the national broadcasting stations adequate
and comprehensive programs, and shall take in the interests
of the community all such measures as in the opinion of the
Commission are conducive to the full development of suitable
broadcasting programs". At this time the Commission began its
operations in South Australia from an old stone building in
Hindmarsh Square the first freehold property " acquired" by
the A. B. C. in Australia. Today the Commission is able finally
to house itself in Adelaide in up-to-date adequate accommodation,
The new ten-storey administration, radio and orchestral
studio complex here at Collinswood is spacious and, among other
things, fully airconditioned. The building will provide vastly
improved accommodation for all administrative and program
departments, News, Technical Services, Publicity, " TV Times",
Staff Association and Credit Union Offices. Large studios for
the South Australian Symphony Orchestra and for light
entertainment programs and two smaller studios for drama and
general production are already fully operative. Hindmarsh
Square ill be completely vacated by late this year when the
last A. B. C. units have moved into this new building.
It is appropriate that such a long-needed development
is taking place in 1974. For it appears that this year will
be one of great modernisation for the A. B. C. It is only about
two weeks since the Minister for the Media, Senator Doug
McClelland, tabled in the Federal Parliament the document which
provides for modernisation.
I refer, of course, to the report prepared by the
Management Consultants, McKinsey Company. The report suggests
a number of important recommendations for the future development
of the A. B. C. These ' range from management organisation to
program output. By the nature of its charter, the Commission itself
will take the final decision on acceptance or otherwise of
the McKinsey Report recommendations, although inevitably the
government will be involved if these proposals require
amendments to existing legislation. There is, however, one
simple decision, involving both the Commission and the
government which has already been made and the importance of
which can easily be overlooked. This is the decision to make
the McKinsey Report public. When the company made a similar
study of the its report there was not published.
Both the A. B. C. and the Government decided that the British
precedent should not be followed in the handling of what is
after all a report for Australians about their national
broadcasting system.
Looking beyond the needs of Australians generally,
the government and the Commission decided that it was important
for the staff of the A. B. C. 6,700 people that they should have
-2-
ready access to the report. It is too important a document
about too important an institution involving too many people
for it to remain the subject of rumour and speculation.
In as much as mora~ le problems may exist within the A. B. C.,
I trust that our action in publishing the report indicates
a desire and a willingness for the staff to participate in
the debate that flows from it. Indeed, it is interesting that
the first through discussion, including an interview with the
A. B. C. Chairman, took place on an A. B. C. program, " This Day
Tonight". It was especially appropriate for this program
to open the debate fully and, dare I say it, even with some
relish. While there may be a need for modernising the A. B. C.,
" This Day Tonight" and its sister program, " Four Corners"
symbolises the need for the durability of certain basic
principles in the operation of the organisation. They, more
than any other programs, have been the subject of controversy
arising out of these principles. Simply stated, they have
been central to the debate about the independence and freedom
from political interference of the organisation. They have
involved men and women whose determination to maintain
independence and to resist interference deserves high praise.
There will, of course, be some argument about the extent
to which the independence and freedom of the A. B. C. have been
threatened. I know that previous Chairmen of the A. B. C. have
stated that such trends have always been exaggerated. I will
say now, however, that those trends have at times been real,
although some of them have been implicit rather than stated.
I have only to mention what happened in the 1960s when an
interview of a former French Premier, M Bidault, was banned
to establish my point. I have only to mention what happened
to " The Quiet Mutiny", a program about Vietnam produced
by an Australian, John Pilger, and what happened about " End
of Dialogue", a program on apartheid in South Africa, to
support my point.
I would mention in this context the disquiet I expressed
in a speech in 1971 about what I saw as a new means of potential
unilateral censorship. I spoke then about the dangers of applying
too rigidly a policy of not allowing a point of view to be put on
the A. B. C. if the opposing point of view was not presented more
or less at the same time. I pointed out that it would be absurd
for the one point of view not to be put simply because its opponents
chose to remain silent. By all means, they should be given the
opportunity to speak but, by no means, should their decision to
remain silent enable the stifling of the viewpoint which they oppose.
" It is wrong that politicians of either Party should in effect be
able to censor a debate by refusal to appear," I said then.
-3
Pressure against the A. B. C. has always involved means
other than direct approach or intervention. A public statement,
even if unaccompanied by action, can in itself be a source of
pressure, designed to frighten men and women engaged in the
delicate task of presenting information about matters of public
controversy. I have no reason to revise my suspicious views
of the motives of a former Postmaster-General who could say:
" I think in some programs there is not what I would call a
proper balance, which gets very close to leading to bias on
the program and I don't merely say political bias."
I see no reason to revise my suspicions of the motives of
the same man who said in the same statement that the Australian
Broadcasting Commissioners should preview controversial programs
of programs that were likely to be controversial. I certainly
see no reason to revise my suspicions about one Reverend.
parliamentarian who thought the answer to the problem was to
come up with his own set of guidelines for the A. B. C.
I have never made any secret of my great admiration for
a former Labor Prime Minister, John Curtin. In talking about the
I find again that on this, as on so many other subjects,
what he had to say made profound sense. It is worth quoting
at some length a statement he made on 12 April 1945. He said
then:-" The Government recognises that the intent of the
Australian Broadcasting Act is to create a position
of special independence of judgment and action for
the national broadcasting instrumentality. This is
inevitably the case because of its highly delicate
function in broadcasting at public expense news
statements and discussions which are potent influences
on public opinion and attitudes. As the legislation
provides, this peculiar function calls for an undoubted
measure of independence for the controlling body of
the national broadcasting instrumentality which cannot
be measured by the constitution of other semi-governmental
boards or agencies which do not impinge on the tender
and dangerous realms of moral, religious, aesthetic
and political values. In the last resort, the healthy
and beneficent functions of national broadcasting
and the maintenance of public confidence in the system
must rest, in all matters touching these values, solely
on the integrity and independent judgment of the persons
chosen to determine and administer its policy, and not
on either review by, or pressure from, any sources
outside it, political or non-political. This principle
holds good in spite of the necessary responsibility of
the Commission to Parliament through the Minister, for
the legitimate use of its funds under the terms of the
Act, and all the sections of the Act should be read in
the light of the above general intent of Parliament to
the establishment of the Commission." / 4
4
Those principles hold good today. Those principles,
after a period of questionable activity, are being applied
again today. I can affirm from this platform that, since it
came into office sixteen months ago, the present government
has not sought to interfere with A. B. C. programs. I can affirm
that, in that time, we have not sought to suppress any program
or determine its contents. Indeed, I can point to one major
instance where the present government has created the opportunity
for fuller debate of public issues. It has been the practice
of Prime Ministers to make occasional broadcasts to the nation
about major matters of public interest. Inevitably those
broadcasts have involved at times statements which the Parties
opposed to those Prime Ministers would dispute vigorously.
When I was Leader of the Opposition, I never had the opportunity
to gain a similar forum for the statement of contrary views.
The present Leader of the Opposition has such a forum. In
the last sixteen months the A. B. C. has acceded to every request
he has made for the right to reply to any Report to the Nation
which I have delivered.
I talked earlier about the need for durability of
basic principles, even at a time of modernisation. My Government
is firmly committed to those principles of independence and
freedom from political interference. We have sogght to maintain
and enhance them for the A. B. C. since we came into office.
It is our hope that we will establish such a strong precedent in
this way that no future government will dare to deny them, that
no future government will dare to belittle the competence and
judgment of honest men or worse, to seek to drive them from the
organisation.