Assume for a moment that the ABC was a dedicated team working to serve the public, getting fair rates of pay. Then imagine Australians asked the ABC what salaries they paid their “celebrities”. The ABC team would be happy to provide that list, and surely it could be done in one working day.
Instead the national broadcaster has been hiding those details for two years and has just lost the second appeal. (How much money has it cost to hide the money ABC presenters get?) The ABC gets $1 billion a year from the people of Australia, and it has refused to disclose the details of its $25 million dollar “contractors and consultants” bill, and the salaries of top staff of shows like Media Watch, Four corners, and Mornings with John Faine.
A Freedom of Information request was lodged more than two years ago by the Herald and Weekly Times, seeking access to documents “dealing with salaries, or any payments” paid to program makers working on 13 programs, including those listed above, for the financial year ending 2010.
The BBC was caught paying presenters through personal service companies which allowed those presenters to pay less tax. (Are these the same presenters who advocate “big-government” policies and work to increase tax rates and spend the taxes paid by other citizens? If so, they can hardly pretend they hold an ideological position. Surely this is the definition of “parasitic”.)
The ABC employs 4603 full time employees, and fully 401 of them earned more than $150,000 each. The ABC has wasted taxpayer funds with pathetically weak excuses:
The ABC said the documents it had were exempt from FOI because they were either “program material” or “in relation to program material”.
However, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner said any connection between the pay documents and program material “is so remote that there is not even an indirect relationship between them”.
The ABC then went to the AAT to appeal that decision but was again unsuccessful.
The AAT first made the finding that the ABC could not exempt documents “in relation to” program material but only the material itself, which could include scripts, lyrics and video footage.
“Taking the argument advanced by the (ABC) to its logical conclusion, there would be no documents held by the ABC that are not at least indirectly related to program-making,” said AAT president, judge Duncan Kerr and member Anne Britton.
The only thing clear in this news is that the ABC is not here to serve the public
Even ABC employees must surely recognise that there is no public benefit in concealing the way the ABC uses funds that the public are forced to pay.
The media is the problem.
Australia would not be in the mess that it is in, if we had true investigative media.
Bad policies would be exposed. Bad governments would not get away with disastrous decisions.
By hiding the voices of half of Australia, the ABC costs us far far more than $1 billion a year.
Source: The Australian (paywalled.)
Sweepstake anyone?
Post your guess – what does Tony Jones earn? John Faine?
Jo says …
I would be very surprised if ABC employees were not fully aware “that there is no public benefit” in concealment.
But being driven by a lust to accrue as much “private benefit” from the serfs that they mock and despise – why would they care.
280
If Tony Jones is being paid more than 7 cents a day…
I want my 7 cents back!!
190
With the total left bias displayed by the ABC that there is no public benefit in having the ABC !!
200
ABC was established to provide the public with a reliable news service similar to the UK BBC but has become a left side of politics propaganda unit in focus with some exceptions in programming. SBS is another and we should not have two public broadcasters funded by taxpayers. I do not believe that even one is necessary in the now IT Age and with other broadcasters to choose from that are free to air and funded by advertising.
There must be an inquiry to establish the need for a public broadcaster, and if needed to merge ABC and SBS and downsize what remains. If not deemed to be necessary sell both and retire some of the growing federal debt now heading to $300 billion this financial year.
Roughly 50% of Australians vote left and right of the political centre and most of us on not too far either side. The far left and far right are extremists. ABC left leaning is unacceptable, they should be bipartisan and report the facts only and leave us to form our opinions.
81
There is another, possibly more insidious, government funded network – albeit with not such a high profile. I refer to the RPH network (for Reading and Print Handicapped.) This network is or was primarily aimed at those members of the community who are vision impaired or for other reasons unable to read. The network provides a reading service encompassing the Australian Daily Press but also including a large selection of overseas and domestic magazines and newspapers. Now while it is fair to say that the readings from the Australian newspapers are fairly representative of what is published, the selection of outlets and content other than the major Australian dailies displays blatant bias towards a “progressive,” “liberal” and leftish outlook. They even run their own “green” program full of the sort of nonsense that we have become used to.
This network lists, in its station ID announcements, several different government departments from which it receives support. A bit here and a bit there probably helps disguise the total amount involved.
I used the word ‘insidious’ above and with good reason. When you see the target audience of this network you will understand that the one-sided tosh which is often delivered, is aimed at persons, who through no fault of their own, will probably have access to no other sources of information. This crowd is worthy of a lot more attention.
60
Just to add a little bit of data to the debate, but a significant proportion (between 30% to 40%) of that $1 billion per year goes to transmitting the signal itself, which is paid to a private company that is managed and operates in Australia even though it is owned by a Canadian investment group. No ABC employee benefits financially from that portion of the annual budget. This private company is staffed by Australians and owns and manages the transmission infrastructure that sends out the TV and Radio signals from over 600 sites around the country for the ABC, SBS and many regional commercial broadcasters.
58
As far as I can tell, based on the ABC’s own report the Transmission expenses 2011-12 were 20% of overall expenses and are projected to be 19% of 2012-13 expenses. http://about.abc.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/ABC-Annual-Report-2011-12-Part-6.pdf
160
Jaymez, I may have been adding the ABC and SBS transmission expenditure together with my estimate. I will have to check the numbers and see what the accurate numbers are.
Thanks for the link.
43
Jaymez,
Further checking has revealed that your link has a total outlay for transmission costs of $88.5m + $98.0m + $3.7m = $190.2m for the fiscal year ended June 2012. My information is that for the same period the total transmission cost charged to the ABC was $154.6m. That is a $35.6m discrepency that I cannot explain.
My original post should have said 15% to 20% of that $1 billion.
63
The only way to deal with the media is not to buy their product. Don’t buy newspapers read the news online and criticize them every time they obfuscate or lie. This always makes me feel better even though it will take a long time to make them change.
190
That is the problem with the ABC and SBS Peter – we are all forced to pay for it (over $1.25 Billion combined). We have no choice even if we choose not to watch it. Whereas if we don’t like Channel 9, or ‘The Australian’ we can give them zero support and it costs us nothing!
180
I reestablished a friendship with an ABC employee via facebook – it went well until I mentioned I was a sceptic and was immediately de-friended behind a barrage of abuse! – He had nothing to do with science programs or even documentary programs. He was just a rusted on ABC believer.
190
A certified lefty crank.A normal ABC person.
60
Holy Toledo Batman,
That’s right Robin … the inmates have taken over the Gotham City Assylum!!
Not only do we pay ‘8 cents a day’ for biased reporting on climate change – we also pay for the privelege of our national broadcaster keeping secrets re the salaries of their most-influential staff!
Of course in-so-doing, the ABC. is re-routing money to legal consults (regardless of whether in-house or external – though most likely some combination of both), that should rightly be going to more ‘core’ costs – like program production.
Obviously our ABC is virtually as ‘virtue-lacking’ as Britain’s BBC!! (Don’t be surprised if other little secrets strangely rear their ugly heads in the coming months!!)
Regards, reformed warmist of Logan
140
The ALPBC
60
Personally I believe that all income tax returns should be published annually, so that everyone knows exactly how much everyone else contributes. And that would include ABC employees.
1613
I’ve always had a crazy idea about weighting the value of our votes based on how much personal taxes we pay. The Government after all is financed by taxpayers. Everyone old enough to vote would have a base value vote, but then that could be increased based on taxes paid. There would have to be an ‘average weekly earnings tax paid’ rate allowed to those who are disabled, aged pensioners and full time carers, including parents – I may have missed some other categories. This to me would be far more democratic than our current system where everyone’s vote is the same value regardless of whether you contribute to society or not.
I know it is pretty radical, but in no other system of rule do we give an equal vote to everyone regardless of their stake in the enterprise, or their knowledge, or their experience. Imagine running a family, a business, a publicly listed company in that way. A family of two adults and 5 kids vote to have ice-cream for dinner every night! Shareholders overwhelmingly vote to give equal dividends to all shareholders regardless of the amount of shares they hold! And in a country where everyone has an equal vote regardless of whether they contribute to taxes, is it any wonder we continuously vote for less taxes and more government welfare!
172
For many years, I’ve advocated that each citizen chooses where half their taxation goes;
and also how much they’re prepared to allow the government to borrow (and to personally pay back)
Which department; which program; which charity/social program.
This would leave the government of the day to plug the holes and spruke their Programs in a truly open way.
120
Mentat January 7th
I wholeheartedly agree, we need a proportion of our taxation say 40 per cent at our discretion to fund the things that we feel are important to receive extra funding and to effectively defund those that we see are a waste. If the Government of the day decides it must fund the ABC, then it still has the 60 percent of non discretionary tax they can allocate.
The best part of the immediate effect is that public Corporations like the ABC will be less arrogant and distainful, and more likely to adhere to their charter to provide balanced information and reports covering all sides of an issue lest they offend taxpayers. It would be nice to hear them telling us how good they have been in following their charter and asking (begging) us to direct more to continue their service to taxpapers. I would really like to see that!
Citizen directed taxation ensures government is aware of what their taxpaying voters want and that where they see waste, the voters will express their preference on allocation of precious taxation. We could of course vote to increase our discretionary taxation to 60 percent and just leave them the 40 percent, that sends a strong message to governments to make each dollar of taxation serve the interest of the taxpaper.
Another blessing is that noisy minority groups that suck from the taxpayers teat will have to be nice to us to get funding instead of demanding they be funded.
Bring on the change!
40
You could add in a “conscientious objection” provision. So if you disagree with the way in which part of the budget vote is being used then you can withhold that amount from what you pay. So all the peaceniks could withhold expenditure on the Defence Force while those who object to the Education spend can withhold that portion of their income tax.
30
I like it – Seeing as that the ‘peaceniks’ invariably contribute little in taxes their endeavours at the public teat will be likewise financed.
10
For years I’ve advocated that total tax take should be less than 10%, so that people can then decide how they want to spend their own income (without government involvement).
20
The conclusion you reach is oft touted as the reason that “government by the people, for the people” only lasts about 200 years.
Whenever an asset is transferred from one individual to another by force or threat of force, a theft has occurred.
That describes a tax exactly, whether it was a payment imposed by Imperial Rome, or a tithe imposed by a church, or the ATO today.
So, fundamentally, isn’t the issue that as a society we set up a group of elite mafia and give them the power to steal from all of us? How can a society be expected to continue with any morals when in fact is based primarily on theft and coercion?
100
This literal view of the world is unhelpful. “Taxation is theft.” We live in society, and are highly (almost totally) interdependent. For a society to work, there has to be a widespread agreement on what obligations individual members of that society have. These include the obvious – that you can’t just kill someone else, that you can’t steal stuff, that some activities that might impinge on others enjoyment of life are not permitted (e.g. lighting fires). But taxes are not levied by an individual, they are levied by society as a whole. Therefore they aren’t theft, any more than the death penalty is murder, or controlled burns are arson.
But if you want to live in a fantasy world where some “elite mafia” steal from you, that is your privilege.
44
We do live in a society where an “Elite Mafia” steal from us!
Taxation is legitimized extortion – a monopoly protection racket if you will – Pay us this much or we’ll . It is only the threat that differs – “Break your arms” or “Throw you in prison for 25 years” – what’s the difference?
Also, your communist skirt is showing, we are not nearly as interdependent as you would want us to be. Government must only take interest in “In common good” so they have no role in determining anything that does not affect the common good like how many dogs/cats goats/sheep you have on your own property, how you use your own water sources, even building standards (except where health and safety of persons other than the residents of that property are affected) and ESPECIALLY what light globes you use!
51
Last time I looked, the feral government was stealing from me via an instrument called “tax” administered by the taxation authority, ATO. I’ve never received a tax demand from “society” although recently a scammer from “society” has been sending me unsolicited emails trying to access my tax details.
30
“This literal view of the world is unhelpful.”
See, that’s why you don’t understand climate change John, you aren’t taking a literal view.
What other view is there? You look at things how they are. You don’t get sidetracked by labels and propaganda and fear-mongering and “the social contract” and all that other rubbish pushed on us.
When you do the conclusions that you come to are “taxation is theft” and the government is a protection racket.
You also have to ask the question, how is it moral for someone or group to borrow money and then put the repayments on to another person or group. When you realise it isn’t, you realise that of course the government bond market is a criminal racket.
30
You will be shocked JB – I gave you a green thumb. I actually agree 100% with what you said. Seems that lately there have been a number of radical anti-tax elements invading this blog.
When you live in a society that has certain perks … like police and military defence, then expect to pay some money for the upkeep. This is called taxation. To call it theft is being grossly disingenuous. I would suggest that anyone that doesn’t understand these basic concepts watch this excellent free series of lectures on justice at Harvard University:
http://www.justiceharvard.org/
Some of the lectures are particularly relevant to the concept of society and taxation … one principal I like is the one that taxation laws should be designed as if you didn’t know your position in society – e.g. race, gender, income, employment status etc. Such objectivity is unfortunately almost invariably lacking in politics.
If you don’t like how your tax dollars are spent, pick a charity you like* and donate the equivalent amount there and you won’t be paying tax. It ain’t rocket surgery lads.
* I recommend the Bulldust Beer Endowment Fund, though there are other worthy causes out there.
22
I don’t have a problem with taxation – I have a real problem with taxation when the effort incurred in raising the money’s so taxed is not reflected in the care and attention given in spending said tax. In that case a ‘theft’ occurs twice; first from me and secondly away from it being spent on something actually useful at the end of the day.
We are in a sorry state at the moment – where those in positions of power have the least amount of true accountability to the general public and the general public gets fleeced at every turn.
Personally I reckon we should have a vote on whether the previous government elect can enjoy the rights and privileges so obtained. So lying, cheating, twisting facts, etc could well result in a full suspension of all benefits (and protections) come the next election… This would prove an almost perfect Darwinian method of separating the wheat from the chaff in quick order, and being a politician would be seen as equally as a duty and a responsibility that requires complete integrity at all times.
With this we just might see throughout gentleman and ladies in parliament and not a heaving mass of insults being traded across the floor like a crowd of drunken football hooligans…
20
I’m no freeloader. But I want to be able to choose my services. I want there to be healthy competition so I can get value for money.
If that’s extreme, well, shouldn’t we all be driving the same cars? Or surely the government should be providing food, I mean, it’s essential to survival. We can’t leave that to competitive market forces!
00
“Radical ant-tax elements invading this blog”.
Is this your blog Bullsh__?
I don’t think it is your place to determine “invasion” or “radical”.
10
It probably never occurred to JB or Bull, but in the contemporary Western democracy using fiat currency, there is no need for government to raise money through taxation whatsoever. Government merely has to print it. If you doubt what I say, you need only look around the USA, the UK, France and oh yes, Australia. That is not to say it is sustainable, merely that government can wast as much as they wish simply by creating money out of thin air and thereby debasing the currency.
Why then does government tax? Simple. It is all about CONTROL. If the government steals money through taxation that it has already created out of thin air, it usurps the power from the individual
11
Very much agree with Bulldust, but resignedly sad that this blog has cycled back to the whole idiotic “Taxation is Theft” meme.
I can recommend the Catamon Non-Specific Recreational Inebriation Fund if anyone is looking for yet another worthy cause. Its flexible, donations of suitable materials accepted as well as cash. 🙂
01
Jaymez,
A long time ago now, in a Political Studies class (before the subject was elevated to a “science”), I wrote a paper that sort of expresses your thoughts, and the thoughts of Mentat and Considerate Thinker.
The basic outline was:
1. Every citizen was liable for a fixed amount of annual taxation. This was to cover the basic costs of providing essential services required to maintain a functioning society – Fire, Police, Ambulance, Border Security, etc.
2. In addition, every citizen was then required to pay a non-elective proportion of their total income to cover costs associated with maintaining the country’s fixed infrastructure assets, such are roads, clean water supply, etc.
3. Finally, every citizen was also required to pay an elective tax as a proportion of their total income to cover all other services provided by the Government. This tax would be elective in the sense that the total percentage of income would be fixed, but the citizen would have the option, annually as part of their tax return, to apportion the amount of tax due over the areas of Government spending as laid out in the Budget.
4. The overall level of Government spending would be a matter for debate during the electoral cycle, but the final amount stated in each party’s manifesto would be binding on the Government for the next term of office. It they wanted more money than originally stated, they had to go back to the polls.
As far as I can recall, that was basically it.
I don’t remember getting very high marks, on the grounds that it was too radical, and therefore probably totally unworkable.
It was like the old Peter Ustanov joke –
Teacher: “Name a Russian composer.”
Student: “Rimsky-Korsakov.”
Teacher: “Wrong. The answer I wanted was Tchaikovsky.”
80
Hi RW
Good stuff, makes you think, especially the “elective” idea.
To have that work, however we need a media that responds to this concept and gives a free and in depth comparison of the benefits of each item up for election.
Media can distort perception.
An alternative view, is to trust the government to hire the smartest and best in the land to plan our future expenditure for the greater benefit of all, ha ha.
Of course those entrusted to plan may choose Tchaikovski instead of Mussorgski.
As the FBI motto says Vigilance is the key to making government perform; problem is we can’t be vigilant
with a “bought” media running interference.
KK 🙂
50
Another problem with our system is that ‘elections’ are held once every 3~4 years. The elected party can do as they please between these isolated events, provided the voters memories are erased before the next election. Would it be better if we had a scheme where voting was ‘continuous’? eg.
Scheme 1: Voting is continuous, and a voter can change their preference at any time, allowing dud parties to be kicked out of office quickly.
Scheme 2: Have multiple ‘groups’ running the country at any given time. Each voter nominates which group they belong to. They receive the benefits provided by that group, and are responsible for funding the programs that the group provides. (Sort of like nomanative membership/tribalism)
Scheme 3: Thanks to the internet, voters are able to vote on each issue rather than requiring a ‘geographical representative’ to vote on their behalf… The parliament operates as a executive team, while voters have the role of shareholders….
10
Remember some years back when some States decide to move to 4 year terms, and it was even canvassed at the Federal level. The blurb was that, “hey let’s go to 4 year terms, you know, like they have in the U.S.”
Hmm! Now was that a porky, or just a little white porky.
The U.S. House of Reps has 435 members and all of them face election every 2 years, not 4.
The only person who gets a dedicated 4 year term is the President.
To solve the problem of a possible one party landslide making the Upper House a virtual rubber stamp, The Senate (100 Members) faces election every 2 years, but only one third of the Senators are up for election, so Senators get to serve three 2 year terms, six years. (the same as here in Oz where half the Senate is up for election every three years, hence 6 years here in Oz for Senators as well)
While this (fixed) 2 year term in the U.S. if applied here in Oz may make for more elections, I think it’s by far a better idea.
However, I do wonder how many people still believe that four year period here in Oz is, umm, just like it is in the U.S.
Tony.
50
In the UK now, we are debating giving the vote to prisoners in jail.
Personally, I would like to see prisoners lose their vote for twice their jail sentence.
70
I have advocated that “at the lunch table that solves all the world’s problems”. One of the great advantages of that is that if you receive income from publicly funded sources then your vote is actually negative. So all public servants and beneficiaries effectively do not get to cast a vote. This is one means of addressing the issue of socialism spending other people’s money. Those who vote from the perspective of “what’s in it for me” would be eliminated from the electoral role.
50
Government employees or public servants are paid from tax revenue from the private sector so they are not contributing to revenue, they just return some of the money they are paid. But a nation could not be run without them, assuming that they have meaningful jobs and not created jobs by maates in a government.
00
We in Australia have three tiers of government. Local, State and Federal.
Those of us who work in Local Government have zero influence on State or Federal.
And even within the State and Federal governments, the majority of workers are simply document-shufflers, and have zero influence in policy.
Your thinking is too narrow.
11
Spot on Greg. The policy sections of most departments are very small. Most staff work on delivering the services under their respective Acts of State Parliament.
On top of that, while much policy is developed in departments, it is driven by the politicians. They are usually the catalysts for change. Often as not good departmental policy sits there for years until an opportunity arises to politically push it through.
Also, there is no policy so well intentioned and thought out, that the two party political process can’t completely bastardise it. Like war strategies, they often don’t survive the first few minutes of conflict…
00
You overlook the fact that pensioners were mostly tax payers during their working lives and that services and infrastructure we use today was paid for with tax revenue from them. Self funded retirees maybe do not pay income or company tax (we all pay GST, stamp duties etc) but we are all taxpayers even unemployed welfare recipients.
20
You also personally believe that us humans actually cause the Climate to change…
Therefore you have no credibility, but thanks for your review of the Hobbit!!
Do you know how close ur utopia view is to big Brother??
It’s now 2013, yet JB is wanting us back in the 1200’s…. Sigh!!
70
Lysander Spooner explains the difference between a highwayman and “the government”.
http://lysanderspooner.org/node/64
90
Mr. Spooner’s neglects to mention in his argument that:
a) The highwayman is committing a crime and is aware of it. He runs the risk of being caught, and eventually will be. You folks don’t even admit that the government is guilty of an identical felony.
b)The highwayman runs the risk that sooner or later he will accost a well armed adversary who will blow a ruddy great hole in his head. The government “revenuers” run no such risk.
c) When the highwayman is eventually caught, he is punished and in earlier times may forfeit even his life. The government has no such fear.
d) You can shear a sheep several times bu you can only skin him once. Once held up by the highwayman, most victims were to wary to be held up again, or at least a second holdup was shear chance. The government repeats the same crime over and over and over.
e) The theft of taxation is actually one of the least of the government’s thievery, and this was not the case in the days of the highwayman. Today the government riles everyone’s pockets through debasement of the currency. This is a result of fiat currency circulated in Western civilization in its entirety.
10
Personally I don’t believe that John should be employed by any science department, even if it is only in his current capacity as a secretary and professional astroturfer.
61
Very communist John?
10
If jon faine’s salary was $100 PA that would be $100 too much,for the oxygen theif that he is.
132
I wouldn’t hazard a guess as to what Tony Jones, John Faine or any other of the ABC stars are paid, but I can guess they all received well above CPI pay rises. This is in an environment when Australian media is downsizing across the country so based on usual supply/demand models, labour costs for journalists and presenters should be declining!
So why do I think they got decent pay rises? Well between 2011 and 2012 financial years employee benefits increased 9.7% at the ABC and other staff related provisions went up by 14.2%.
But even the non permanent staff are on a good wicket at the Australian Benevolent Commission which also spent 13.3% more on consultants and contractors in this declining media market.
The only organisation spending more on media hacks is the Federal Government now with over 1600 media consultants, who are probably busy feeding the Government message to their public service colleagues at the ABC who dutifully fill the programming with it!
http://about.abc.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/ABC-Annual-Report-2011-12-Part-6.pdf
90
There can be no comparison to what these twits get paid. At the commercial stations ‘stars’ pull the advertising revenues to their programs and are rewarded accordingly. At the ABC, the only thing that they pull are each other … they have no commercial value because there is no commercial impetuous, they are just ALP fluffers.
10
there is a huge difference between WHAT they get PAID and WHAT they EARN especially in the case of jon paine
130
The earn bit certainly iss not respect is it.
00
The reality is that they are well paid to not give their own opinion.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporate_Media/CorpMedia_ThreatDemocracy.html
62
And remember what Hunter S. Thompson said about the press:
Bad and non-PC language alert
110
Hunter S. Thompson
20
Rick Bradford, can male chimps be found misogynist?
There, it’s easy to ask a tough question in civil language, so why not try it more diligently?
00
The big presenters are all hypocrites. In Sydney they tend to live (quite probably with very few exceptions) on the leafy lower North Shore (north of the harbour) or in the ritzy Eastern Suburbs (south of the harbour), where they don’t have to worry about riff-raff spoiling the ambience, and where their children can attend the best private schools.
It’s ironic that the people they choose to have as neighbours make these some of the safest blue-ribbon electorates in the land. Meanwhile with unfettered cognitive dissonance they keep pushing the left-green agenda, feeling very good about themselves indeed, never thinking about where their kids will go to school once their agenda has succeeded in sending this country down the toilet. But I suppose even in the USSR the elite had their privileges – maybe that’s what they’re counting on.
160
How much does Tony Jones get?
About 1,000 times more than he earns!
110
What is it with broadcasting companies ending with “BC” – The BBC try to avoid publishing details of “expert advisers” claiming it’s a private matter, and now the ABC pretend that the salary of its publicly funded presenters must not be disclosed???
60
Accountability overboard.
10
Of course, if your desire to know the ABC presenter’s salaries is just so that you can say, “See, they get paid too much!” and whinge about it, then I fully support the ABC not telling you.
228
If some were paid more than $24,000 a year, it’d still be far too much.
The ALP proxy voices and gatekeepers on the ABC such as Kerry O’Brien and Tony Jones should be paying to be on air.
121
In the commercial media – people have to pay for advertising…
100
Someone told me almost 15 years ago that Philip Adams paid the ABC for the airtime he uses, and for at least 5 years I didn’t even question it!
50
What if those asking for details on ABC presenters’ salaries intend to use the information in making a case for abolishing the network, or taking it off government funding entirely?
Just withholding the information wouldn’t be enough, then, would it?
20
John, so if the Coalition wins and decides to set up a $1b institute to guard property rights, free speech, and the scientific method and they employed every expert in those areas (people you call “deniers” and extreme rightwingers), you won’t mind if they kept those amounts secret? You would only use the info to “whine”.
100
Whoop, Whoop, Dive, Dive, incompatible concepts alert!! 🙂
doGs but you ask for it sometimes. 🙂
01
John – that’s the same as Phil Jones saying “you only want my data so you can pick holes in it!”
30
WHAT!!! You think that people here would pointlessly whinge!!! How dare…….
oh yeah. Forgot for a moment where i was. carry on.
01
i recall reports that Kerry O’Brien was on a salary of more than $300,000 which, for a partisan political reporter, seemed ridiculously high. don’t know if it was ever confirmed. since he resigned from 7.30 report and now does only Four Corners, i often wonder if he took a salary cut:
19 Oct 2009: Brisbane Times: AAP: Oppn quizzes ABC boss about Kerry O’Brien’s salary
ABC managing director Mark Scott said the corporation was “not of a mind” to make public O’Brien’s salary.
“I can assure you our on-air talent, by and large across the board, … is paid less, significantly less, than their counterparts in private sector,” he told an estimates committee in Canberra on Monday.
Putting salary details into the public domain could place the ABC at a competitive disadvantage because the corporation was not paying the “full private sector rate”… http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/oppn-quizzes-abc-boss-about-kerry-obriens-salary-20091019-h3vq.html
such arrogance. no wonder i can’t stand Auntie any more.
110
One of my favourite “Red Kerry” moments came in the 2004 General Election when he turned a mournful face to the camera and said: “We have some very bad news from Tasmania” which meant that instead of gaining seats there, Labor were losing Bass and Braddon, the 5%-7% swing spelling ‘finis’ for the Liverpool Lout’s aspirations.
100
Mark Scott is implying that if the competitors knew how little the ABC were paying their stars, the private networks would come in and entice them away. Which is absolute rubbish of course. At the ABC the staffers public service like security of tenure is not enjoyed in private enterprise. Many ABC staffers would not be game to leave the safety of the nest. Besides, very few make the successful transition – many have tried, but they don’t have the unwavering left wing audience, and the country viewers who have no choice but to watch the ABC.
Anyway, Scott must think his staff are morons if he thinks the only reason he is retaining them is because the competition don’t know how little they are paid. Does he think if that were actually true the ABC journalists and presenters are so lacking in investigative skills that they couldn’t find out what private enterprise pays and seek out jobs themselves? Second thoughts, perhaps he has a point!
130
I wonder if the ABC could get Bolt and Jones to work for the sort of pay they can offer.
010
The ABC DID have Bolt on Insides as their token 3:1 outnumbered conservative. Not that bolt is a conservative, more a realist I think.
Next John?
PS Still haven’t responded to whether you really think spending billions on windmills and solar panels is better than spending it on medicine,and food John, come on ….
90
Bolt was very much a part of the Labor party when it was a centre-left party.
The problem is that the ALP and the ABC have gone sooooooo far left that anyone with even remtely centralist ideals can no long vote for them.
The Libs have now taken the centre=left position, leaving very little room for both the ALP and the Greens
61
You’ve got to be joking, Andy. The ALP have gone soooooooo far left? The ALP of the 70’s was further left than the current ALP.
21
They work?? I thought they were just clowns remote controlled by Singo and Gina who get paid for doing the “look at me i’m a rabid but still ambulatory idiot” routine.
01
I seem to recall that in one of the election broadcasts (probably 2001 or 2004) one of the pundits (not a politician) turned to another of the panelists (of whom Red Kerry would have been one) and declared “We’ve lost”. It would be an interesting exercise for a researcher to go through the broadcasts looking for the many other examples of bald-faced partisanship.
100
In the most recent election coverage Red Kerry claimed on the results for one seat “That’s a loss for the ABC, er ALP” or words to that effect.
120
Careful Grumpy,
That’s how urban myths get started.
There is a wise saying I have sitting in my desk drawer somewhere.
It says:
If you are old and Not Grumpy,
You haven’t been paying attention.
Perhaps I use it as bit of self justification.
KK 🙂
20
True, it was actually the 2007 election:
A vintage night that. 🙂
01
Your memory does not play you false, Grumpy.
I heard it too. Verbatim.
30
So where’s Wikileaks when it would be really interesting data to leak?
Oh, yeah, right, Julian’s private-eye function is only in service to his Totalitarian impulses.
10
“ABC at a competitive disadvantage ”
Yet they only cater to less than half the population with their far left bias..
That is FAR MORE DESTRUCTIVE to their competitiveness.
Hey wait, are they their to COMPETE or to provide a public service. If they want to compete, let them try to do it their own tack.
Sell the ABC as a commercial venture. !!
60
Well he was Bob Hawke’s press secretary.
40
btw anthony has a very important thread up:
6 Jan: WUWT: Does NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) keep two separate sets of climate books for the USA?
Glaring inconsistencies found between State of the Climate (SOTC) reports sent to the press and public and the “official” climate database record for the United States. Using NCDC’s own data, July 2012 can no longer be claimed to be the “hottest month on record”…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/06/does-noaas-national-climatic-data-center-ncdc-keep-two-separate-sets-of-climate-books-for-the-usa/
while we can expect plenty of MSM coverage of the following:
8 Jan: News Ltd: Patrick Lion: National heat record expected by Bureau of Meterology
WEATHER analysis to be released today is expected to show Australia is sweltering through its hottest days in history…
The national temperature is calculated from about 700 weather stations across the country, but is processed as a mathematical interpolation instead of an average…
http://www.news.com.au/national/national-heat-record-expected-by-bureau-of-meterology/story-fncynjr2-1226549102215
60
Evening all.
Here’s an idea – why not put the question to QandA? It would make a fascninating and entertaining episode, at least by comparison of the other swill they serve up.
Cheers,
Speedy
70
We have the same scenario in the UK.
The MainStream Media are bought & paid for.
The BBC hid the names of their 28 “Experts & Scientists” who they falsely claimed had ‘settled’ the science of AGW, thus releasing them from their Charter obligation to impartially present both sides of a debate.
They managed this for 6 years despite Freedom of Information requests,showing the FOI tribunal to be complicit.
Much thanks to Maurizio @ omnologos.com for the names, who turned out to be activist warmists.
No heads have rolled for these lies.
A complicit inadequate was removed from his job, with a golden handshake of £450,000, plus a huge inflation proof pension.
He was removed for failing to properly supervise a vicious & totally unfounded attack on Lord McAlpine, accusing him of being a paedophile.
This was an act of evil, incompetent spite, which cannot justify the name of journalism.
Lord McAlpine is justifiably suing,promising all monies to charity. Inevitably, the British taxpayer will pay through the BBC licence fee tax. As with our banking crash, profits go into individual pockets, & costs & losses will be nationalised.
I am hoping that another scandal will break shortly, & I am hoping it will bury the BBC.
I am not holding my breath.
We stand no chance whatever of building a just & sane society until we have a free, just & sane media.
We live in interesting times.
171
Please do hold your breath.
125
jb, please do hold your breath !
40
We stand no chance whatever of building a just & sane society until we have a free, just & sane media.
I’d gratefully accept “balanced” but given the track records of the ABC, BBC and PBS … Buckley’s or less.
81
How can you say this? In Australia, the ABC provides the best news service. It makes the best documentaries. It makes some of the best drama.
212
Haven’t watched ABC or any ‘commercial’ free to air since Foxtel came on air and I haven’t missed a beat. If I want unbiased international coverage, I look to Al Jazeera on Foxtel; I want unbiased local coverage, I hit the blogs.
40
I’ll agree on Al Jazeera.
01
I will admit that used to be the case John, but today it boasts the largest news service, not necessarily the best, it did make great documentaries but I can’t recall many recently. It does show overseas docos, but so does SBS. As for Drama – they are all outsourced theses days to private productions firms. Very little in house production occurs theses days.
The top TV Drama was Underbelly on 9.
10
Have you noticed that SBS shows the more weird crackpot doco’s?
Drama/comedy remains interesting. The ABC does most of the innovative stuff, which is often copied by the commercial networks. For example, channel 9 took one look at Paper Giants and realised they had to made “Howzat, Kerry Packer’s War”.
11
Best news service, only if you believe in catastrophic global warming. The recent ABC reporting on the Tasmanian bushfires, where they were repeatedly described as the “worst on record” is just one example. Of course ,as a RSA emigrant, you would never have heard about the fires in 1967. 62 people died in a 5 hour period and 600 were admitted to hospital when the town of Snug and the entire Huon Valley burned. And the recent Prominence given to Gergis’ study that was torn to shreds in this blog over the next two weeks, to the extent it was withdrawn from publication. Did the ABC ever acknowledge this error, JB? No. and Gergis was rewarded with another bunch of taxpayer dollars for her next crappy paper. I no longer watch ABC, who apparently “honoured” Gillard with the “newsmaker of the year” award, last week. Tiny little minds at work at our ABC.
21
Ian, the Gerbil was shredded by Steve McIntyre et al at Climate Audit and packaged here 😉
10
Its difficult to compare current and past disasters. We have far better prediction and communication capacity these days. Who knows what the toll would be now without these improvements.
02
Its hard to get the scale of things when viewed in isolation. If we are loking at public broadcasting companies the amount of money they use cannot be grasped until we compare them with something for which we have a percived scale.
The example I use is to compare he BBC with NASA. The fact is, the budget of the BBC is (per capita USA/UK) something like twice that of NASA! The NET budget of the BBC is alone more than half that of NASA.
OK, so NASA is shite, but they do work in what is perceived publicly as the most expensive arena short of war, and have thousands of engineering and science projects. What do we get with a broadcaster like the BBC…just the shite.
120
…I know those two figures arent commutative but Im going on memory froma few years ago. The actual figures are easily Googled.
20
Figures fresh off of Google:
NASA annually: 14 bn USD or roughly 46 USD per US citizen.
BBC annually roughly 8 Bn USD or roughly 130 USD per British citizen.
For 46 dollars a year the US citizen gets the International Space Station, Mars rovers, probes to the outer planets, probes to the inner planets, solar probes, weather sattelites, communications research,the Hubble space telescope, research at the edge of aerospace, climate research, energy research, astrophysics research, attempts to contact ET and…yes…making Muslims feel good about thmselves (the organisations primary role under Obama, according to its director).
On the other hand, for their 129 dollars each per year the British citizen gets some repeats of Dads Army and a bunch of cookery shows.
Doesnt seem real does it?
100
NASA Budget = US$203 per (actual) taxpayer (approx 69 mil taxpayers)
BBC Budget = US$692 per (actual) taxpayer(approx 26 mil taxpayers)
20
Bejessups…its worse than I thought!!! about 3.5 times as expensive as NASA.
00
Well said, Jo. Speaking a cynical Brit, we see quite the same appalling standards of behaviour in the BBC – which is now little more than a disreputable joke of a ‘public service’ broadcaster. Worse, it enjoys a legally-enforceable license fee to the tune of almost £4billion per annum from British citizens. Absolutely shocking. And remember; this is a public service broadcaster with a mandate to remain impartial, which now thinks nothing of admitting publicly that it has made a clear decision to bias in favour of CAGW, and to actively seek to close out any climate sceptic voices on it’s channels.
The BBC: more of a disgrace to public service broadcasting than the ABC will ever be.*
*But they’re not too far behind.
90
Like the just-us system, its public service except we generally fail to recognize who the public is being served to.
Follow the money. Who is snuffling at the public funds?
30
I can only reiterate my previous comment.
20
It’s the exact same thing with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in Canada (CBC).
– over $1B/year public funds
– uses “journalistic freedom” to stonewall AIA requests (our FOIA equivalent)
– spent millions on lawyers fighting in courts over AIA
– strong Liberal slant (and I’m Liberal)
If I had my way, I’d slash the budget by about 90% and force them to concentrate on what they were mandated to do years ago which is to service remote locations in Canada.
If they want to still compete in prime time programming, news, and sports then use another model like a PBS style fundraising from those who actually still want to watch.
70
I have occasionally had to listen to the propaganda onslaught from JJJ the government radio for people under 12 OR those who have been captured and had their minds entrained by this willful distortion of reality.
In the latter case the age can be anything up to 99.
Sorry I forgot, the pc requirement is to justify your statement with science: that is with 94.5% certainty.
According to Scientists.
Who do not work for the Government.
Oh no; never; we wouldn’t stoop that low.
This revelation occurred when visiting a supermarket, and it was an eye opener to hear the diatribe of the cute young things rubbishing OLD people and how they restricted young people from having a good time.
We; the taxpayers; pay for this knife in the back.
How smart does that make us?
KK
70
Concurrently with getting the ABC to provide paymnent information, surely it is in order to directly ask the Tony Jones, John Faines and all the amount that they are paid and how those payments are made. The ABC and their star commentators cannot demand transparency from others when they go to such great lengths to prevent disclosure of their own renumeration affairs.
90
@GerardB
That hypocrisy is precisely the issue. The meeja, well including the ABC, is extremely happy to run deliberate envy-inducing headlines on say, the annual bonus of BHP’s CEO, but fight with spite to prevent the same standards being applied to themselves
Old adage: most people don’t mind being hypocritical, they just mind it being pointed out
Witness that silly, juvenile Brookes’ comments on this issue downthread
Now expect JG to amend the FOI Act to allow the ABC to stay hidden on this issue
70
As an American, I have a question: is all information from television in Australia filtered through the ABC only?
If so, it seems you Aussies (and apparently the Brits also) have a monopoly problem. Those who operate monopolies do it for various reasons but the primary one is, or at least always becomes, self-enrichment.
Our media appears to this American to be at least a bit more diverse, although if someone disagrees with that, I’d like to hear why. The three major networks ((CBS, NBC, and ABC) are pretty much indistinguishable from each other, but we have access to a wide array of cable and satellite programming that can and does contradict the leftist party line.
Even when I was growing up outside of New York City in the 1950s we had local channels that provided alternatives to the national networks.
40
@theduke
I appreciate your point, but you are missing the most salient factor:
The USA has more than 10x the population size of Oz in about the same geographically sized area. We simply don’t have the demographic mass to run successfully a wide range of cable and satellite programming. Our available satellite offerings (now mostly from Foxtel) comprise old movie re-runs and shopping channels
So, a few (very few) MSM editors act with impunity as gate-keepers of the “information” flow
50
No,
There are a number of networks, most centres are serviced by 5 major networks Ten, Seven, Nine or Win, ABC, and SBS. Two of the five are government funded (ABC and SBS). For various reasons, (Mostly to do with who wants to work in soft “arts” and university “Programming” of students) most of the media is captured by a significant left bias, both in the Public and Private sector broadcasters.
We have cable/satellite networks that include Sky, Fox News and CNN so and there is a bit of balance but that tends to be international news rather than local. As a result cable doesn’t balance local political rhetoric/propaganda very well.
The heavy lifting of political balance in Australia is provided by a couple of Talk radio heavyweights (particularly Alan Jones who has national syndication) and Andrew Bolt (actually a Newspaper columnist) who also now has a whole half hour in the dead of Sunday Morning on the Ten Network, and an Hour on Talk radio in the evenings on 2GB in Sydney (Alan Jones Station) weeknights. So I would say real conservative perspectives only really get aired on two outlets, and even then only over limited periods.
The other talk radio stations in other markets offer less conservative viewpoints but probably do “Centralise” the rhetoric a bit.
Does that help give you a picture?
50
Thank you, bobl. That was a great overview. Also thanks to Ianl. Your media situation sounds similar to ours in the US but, as Ianl notes, on a reduced scale. Left-wing bias is a pernicious feature of modern societies and if it were not for talk radio and websites like this one, we’d be completely at their mercy.
10
Some ABC presenters also have the time available to offer themselves up for private speaking engagements to supplement the pittance that the ABC pays them (hence the ABC doesn’t want to release their salary details because the ABC would be embarrassed by how little they pay their staff!) – //http://www.platinumspeakers.com.au/speaker1037-Tony-Jones
Tony Jones speaking price is available on request, but Jon Faine is also a platinum speaker for <$5,000 plus GST.
40
“Never before in recorded history has Australia experienced 5 consecutive days of national-average maximum temperatures above 39C”
This must be Lewandowsky’s “Battle of Climate” speech. Next thing he will be fighting deniers from the beaches, the bush and the Harbour Bridge.
00
The only useful thing Tim Flannery ever did was to re edit Watkin Tench’s 1788. In it ,I seem to remember a four or five day period of temperatures in the 40s, followed by an almighty bushfire that the colonists unsurprisingly thought was armageddon. Great read.
00
O/T
Newsflash!
Lewandowsky’s work colleague accuses Gillard of being a climate denier!
.
❝ Prime Minister Julia Gillard said “And while you would not put any one event down to climate change … we do know that over time as a result of climate change we are going to see more extreme weather events.”
That is not exactly true, of course.
There are no climate related events that lack the fingerprint of global climate change.❞
●
70
Does Laden normally write this incoherently?
30
It is hot though.
01
It’s summer. This is Australia. It gets hot.
And, for a bit of a change, “Narelle” looks like she’ll take a bite off the corner of WA this coming weekend. Which can make a whole lot of the State very wet and cause surface temperatures to be much lower than the model’s outputs.
00
“Post your guess – what does Tony Jones earn? John Faine?”
I am going to guess: “too much” and “more than they are worth”
50
And they are still worthless.
30
The quality of comments just gets better.
24
With your help. 😉
11
I saw the irony when I posted.
10
“Information Commissioner John McMillan – who has acted on the complaints The Australian has been making about the immigration department for well over a year – has already suggested the review look at extending FOI to security intelligence agencies and maybe more of the ABC.” –The Australian September 27, 2012
Why does a news body rate in the same category as our intelligence agencies? Something to hide…hmm?
60
A report already tabled suggests that the Department of Immigration is poorly managed and inefficient and requiring an overhaul urgently. Anyone surprised? The Department has been manipulated by the circus alliance government since 2007. Meanwhile down at people smuggling HQ.
40
People Smuggling is the easist way to get ALP voters into the country.
20
Are these the same ‘celebrities’ who debate whether or not Julian Assange is wrong for releasing intelligence information which endangers lives?
00
I smell another hockey stick a brewin’ … researchers are trying to show that El Nino activity has increased in recent years compared to a baseline of 7,000 years by using coral-based proxies:
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201301/s3665174.htm
Surprise, surprise, they call for extra funding because the data is sparse at this time. I am a bit surprised myself that coral around Christmas Island in the Indian Ocean would be indicative of El Nino activity based in the Pacific Ocean, but what do I know? I am not a climate scientist.
Also at the end of the interview (see audio link) it is mentioned that the proxy indicates a much more active El Nino period some 400 years ago … but the Prof tries to wave that away as perhaps a volcanic period or some other natural variation. Obviously that data must be ignored as it doesn’t sit with the hockey stick model of recent climate change…
51
Absolutely
Damn straight. Less of this opinionated crap that we get and more straight reporting would be a good thing.
True. Also, when the opposition is a complete policy void collaborating with others to abuse the court system to try and change the balance of the Australian Parliament that would be exposed. Luckily we have a Government that while not perfect is actually pretty good on policy, and have been able to make a near hung parliament work, so things aren’t as bad as they could be. 🙂
Nope, this bit is just utter garbage. sourced from ruperts OO?? nuf said.
17
You would have to have the title of the village idiot tied up again this year, Cat.
20
OD’d on Nepeta cataria again, obviously !!!
You have got to learn to stay away from that stuff, it will addle your brain even further.
(If that’s possible ????)
10
Libs, policy free… No, just keeping it close to their chest, just as the SHOULD be until an election is called
Their main poicy should be to GET RID of all the regressive Lab/green legislation, put the unions in their proper place, and let Australia get back to PROGRESS !!!
20
Good to see you up on the slogans AngryG55. You and Tones must have a lot in common. 🙂
04
I try to keep it to one-liners so the likes of you have a slim chance of understanding.
Still not working for you though., is it. 🙁
I couldn’t be bothered working with single syllable words, just for you…
…sorry if that means you have difficulty.
21
Now, now Cat, why are you upsetting the locals?
02
Having an opinion that is in any way at variance with das grupenthunk seems to rattle the cage here doesn’t it?? But there are the occasional flashes of humour from some which is encouraging. 🙂
01
Will we accept spin again?
Political BS
10
Gillard BS spin the worst kind
10
If one can believe anything the BBC says, this is quite an interesting development.
Iceland thrives because it did the opposite of the “solution” to Europe’s woes.
00
Perhaps they should make them ‘cabinet documents’ sealed for 30 years
00
In 2003 economist Prof Ross McKitrick of University of Guelph proposed the T3 tax. His design was elegant & simple. If GHG emitters were to be be held to cause global temperature changes, then they should pay an impost related to the global temperature rise. OTOH, if the global temperature fell, they would receive a rebate in similar proportion from those who would collect the tax if an increase happened.
See http://us.yhs4.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=A0oGdOVpfO5QM3oAAz5XNyoA?p=McKitrick%20T3%20tax&fr2=sb-top&fr=altavista and elsewhere on the Net.
Ross is the person who teamed with Steve McIntyre in 2 seminal papers to break the hockey stick. He is part of my early adoption of skepticism. People with skills like his are to be treasured and consulted.
How interesting it would have been to follow the rebates since 2003.
There is really nothing stopping a country like Australia from adopting an emission tax like this. Now.
00
Not really sure why you’d get a rebate if temps didn’t go up? And how do you hit up a company that no longer exists in the future when temps rise?
01
Earn? EARN? These parasites should be paying us for the privilege of pushing their left-wing views.
10
First, Its Jon Faine, not John Faine.
Second, why is it important to know how much they earn?
You are sounding like a group of fruit loops
01
What does it matter whether it is Jon or John?
It’s a waste of space and oxygen either way you name it.
If you don’t care how your tax money is spent, then YOU are the fruit loop.
Oops. Maybe you are a recipient rather than a provider on the great gravy train.
10
What does it matter whether it is Jon or John?
Well, if you are going to say something about someone, its common courtesy to spell their name correct.
“It’s a waste of space and oxygen either way you name it”
So, now someone is an “It” and a waste of space. Charming
I do care about how my money is spent, but I cant see it as being anything other than a voyeuristic journey about certain staff members. Why dont you tell me exactly what your taxable income was for the last 4 year? (dont post it, I really dont care)
00