Another little something from the man the chronic Left loves to hate:

"The media sector in Australia and around the world is undergoing significant disruption and national, taxpayer-funded broadcasting cannot be insulated from these changes"  (Released 14/8/17).

Unlike the Coalition and Labor – who are scared witless of Left public broadcasters, ABC and SBS – Australian Conservatives have a policy on the taxpayer-funded sheltered workshop for under-achieving reporters.

The full policy can be found on the Australian Conservatives' website – along will all policies.

Struth, what a crappy policy!

Ruining and shrinking our national broadcasters and using the savings to shrink the economy.

You are going to have to explain that one, Aidan. How can you make such a wild statement based on the information given?

Dear Aiden,

It does look like a pretty toxic policy, including this section which shows just how much our Cory is prepared to bend over to get Murdoch's imprimatur. He really did get a few good lessons from Abbott didn't he.

“Australian Conservatives will limit the provision of online services by the consolidated broadcaster to on-demand viewing of the local news, entertainment and current affairs programs produced by the broadcaster “

Well there goes any chance of catching up with shows like Grand Designs or even ones like Utopia which is produced by the Working Dog team.

I reckon this effort will be reworked pretty quickly. Amateurish at best, doing the bidding of News Corp at its worse.

ttbn,

From http://www.conservatives.org.au/our_policies#national_broadcasting_abc_and_sbs
"Reduced scope and presence
Australian Conservatives will limit the consolidated broadcaster to two TV stations – covering news, current affairs, drama and entertainment.
We will limit the consolidated broadcaster to two radio stations available nationally with local and national content.
Further, Australian Conservatives will limit the provision of online services by the consolidated broadcaster to on-demand viewing of the local news, entertainment and current affairs programs produced by the broadcaster."

Do you doubt this equates to shrinking and ruining it?

It then goes on to say:
"Budget context
These changes will save taxpayers over $1 billion per annum which will be used to repay national debt."
Repaying national debt is contractionary fiscal policy. It shrinks the economy - that's what contractionary means.

If we were in a boom, contractionary fiscal policy would be a good thing as it would help counteract the effects of a highly expansionary private sector. But we're not in a boom, and taking more money out of the economy means there's less opportunity for the private sector to make money, so they employ fewer people. And the drop in tax revenue means the government is likely to end up worse off financially.

Aidan,

“Do you doubt this equates to shrinking and ruining it?”

Of course it is shrinking it. It needs shrinking. You disagree to this only because you have a track record of wanting governments and their organisations to be prodigal with other peoples' (taxpayers) money. You think it is okay for long-suffering taxpayers (only 25% of whom use the ABC) to fork out for the biased, leftist rot you like to hear, while the self-funding commercial networks cannot afford to compete.

Then you repeat your nonsense about debt being good!

Your final paragraph has nothing to do with communication policy.

Dear ttbn,

The following link may help:

http://theconversation.com/does-the-abc-deliver-australians-good-bang-for-their-buck-25608

Firstly, the quality of ABC content and services according to
many Newspoll surveys have found that most Australians (78%)
thought ABC content was "good." And, in the same polls -
86% regarded online content also as "good."

Not only does ABC content reach broad swathes of the
Australian public in both metropolitan and regional markets
but at 14 cents a day when you get 4 TV channels, national
and local radio and online and mobile services who on earth
can complain that this is excessive.

Let's once and for all scotch the myth that the ABC is too
expensive for an affluent democracy such as Australia.

Outgoing ABC head Mark Scott waited until his last day as boss to criticise the expensive redundancy of B1 & B2, the ABC and SBS.

Scott recommended a merger. However that would mean the leaner, advertising, SBS having to same-sex marry up with the over-stuffed, lard-arsed ABC.
Some quotes from Landline 24/02/2016,

DAVID LIPSON: 'Mark Scott claims it could save $40 million a year, a figure backed by the left-leaning think tank The Australia Institute..'

Bob Hawke previously directed a merger but an election got in the way,
DAVID LIPSON: One former ABC boss thinks a merger is a no-brainer.

DAVID HILL, FORMER ABC CHAIRMAN: I think it's absurd that in country with our population we are only one to try and support two public viable, comprehensive, public broadcasters.

DAVID LIPSON: In fact almost 30 years ago to the day, he was tasked with the amalgamation.

DAVID HILL: I was summoned to Canberra and the government of the day had decided we were to merge. And I was to be the chairman of the new merged organisation and Sir Nicholas Shehadie, the chairman of SBS, was to be the deputy chair and Nick and I were sent away to merge. But of course, a few months later there was an election and the then-Prime Minister Bob Hawke called the merger off.

Foxy,

78/86% of the 25% of Australians who use the ABC, I suppose. Few Australians use it.

Nobody doubts the 'quality' - it should be good at a billion dollars a year!

I have just been sitting on the balcony of a cabin overlooking a bay on Yorke Peninsular, listening to ABC News Radio. I can get Adelaide commercial stations from across the gulf, but they aren't as strong as the ABC. The ABC does a sterling job for the country (apart from the lack of local news). I don't want to lose the ABC! I love it for British and Australian drama (they can stick the so-called comedy).

My point is that it is too big and too costly to taxpayers. It's no 'myth'. A billion dollars is not chicken feed when we have a $500 billion debt. It should be pared down. The SBS is just a an indulgence and sop to multiculturalism, which is divisive enough as it is, without providing foreign TV and radio.

As leoj points out, even Mark Scott thought there economies should be made.

Dear ttbn,

Australia is a wealthy country which once espoused
ideals of justice and integrity. It can afford and
must have a national broadcaster providing news,
enlightened comment and quality entertainment.
The ABC is starved of funding due to the malevolence
of Coalition Governments. What it needs on its Board
and as CEO skilled people who are committed to public
broadcasting. The ABC's independence should be
protected by Parliament and must never be beholden
to advertisers or commercial interests.

The old complaint of left bias has been consistently
refuted by numerous independent inquiries. SBS
serves a particular purpose.

However if you want to complain about the waste of money
how about the billions of dollars in running detention
centres offshore and in Australia when asylum seeker
claims could be considered while they live in the
community? What about the waste of billions in the
ridiculous cuts to company tax rates which Treasury
modelling suggests will have, at best, a marginal
effect on output and employment. What about the potential
$1 billion subsidy of a coal mine and then there's also
politicians claiming very generous rental subsidies
(amongst other rorts) when in Canberra. And the list could
go on.

There's lots of things we should be troubled by - for sure.
But funding for our National Broadcaster should not be
one of them.

Hey Foxy,
Ok I'll go along with it...
But it's not that we need skilled people, we just need well-informed fair and unbaised people who have a committment to investigative journalism and telling the truth.
It's not that hard.

You say that funding for our national broacaster shouldn't be an issue but I'll argue you're wrong on that point, because the second they start failing to report the facts truthfully, and instead report distorted facts, narrative and conjecture based stories, using our own consciences against us to push their agendas, then they've lost the legitimacy to be taxpayer funded national broadcaster.

When Hitler came to power one of his first acts was to appoint Joseph Goebbels, Minister for Propaganda. I am sure Corny Banana will do much the same thing. Then they will expand the national broadcaster to a 24/7 operation, broadcasting the rousing speeches of 'Fearless Leader', party policy, condemnation of undesirables etc etc, it will become compulsory listening for all good citizens. Wunderbar!

Paul1405,
So you think Cory Bernati is going to act just like Labor and the Greens do?
Well we can certainly do without that hey.

Anyone who is slightly right of the Greens is a Hitler, according to Paul.

According to Paul, anyone who is not a Green is automatically a Nazi. Who would listen to anyone who adulates a supposedly straight di Natale who appears on national TV wearing a rainbow scarf?

When these people act like national socialists, and that is what they do, their supporters become all defensive, when its pointed out. Conditions in Australia are not as turbulent, or as destructive as they were in Europe 80 years, but if they were to deteriorate to that point, then the One Nations, Australian Conservatives and those of similar leaning would morph into something far more radical than they are now. All in the name of the common good.
The extreme left would do the same.

Paul,

Hitler and the Nazis hated Conservatives. Hitler had a big, old chip on his LEFT shoulder. That's why he stirred up the workers, and the National SOCIALIST party was born. Hitler and his followers were all people of the Left. Why do you not understand that?

ttbn, Hitler was an extremists, forget this left right BS, as I have said before on the forum, the French have a lot to answer for on that score.

Looking at the policy statements from the Bernardi Party, there seems to be a high degree of populism in what are, untested simplistic and predictable policies. I can understand how some feel betrayed by the social liberalism of both possible governing parties, and see in Bernardi and Hanson, sentiments that appeal to their notion of personal justice. Something the major parties are seen as lacking, and therefore not delivering, more or less pandering to minorities and the unworthy, at the expense of the majority. Dissatisfied with moderate progressives which are the mainstay of both the Liberal and Labor Parties, and therefore the likely style of government in the foreseeable future. There is no great philosophical differences between Liberal and Labor, there is only a difference of emphasis, and then they are only separated by degree, nothing more. This drives some individuals in the direction of the more extreme.

ttbn, what drives you to support Bernardi?

It's not him I support but his policies. As far as voting goes – which is all I do, just like everyone else – what else is there for me? If there was a slightly jazzed up version of Howard leading the Liberal party, I would probably still vote for them, but the Liberal Party has been turned into another Labor Party by Comrade Turnbull.

I understand the Labor party. I understand the Greens. They do what they say they will do. But I will hot abide a party that has done a complete reverse. Hence, Australian Conservatives.