ABC restructure and redundancies: Absurd, Barmy and Catastrophic

Margery Clark writes: The ABC has made a huge mistake in this restructure (“ABC considers recourse as it bristles against the Oz’s restructure reporting”). It has cut all the programs that make it unique as a broadcaster, moving it from an institution of excellence to one of mediocrity. In other words, just like one of those dreary commercial stations/channels.

Making Andrew Probyn redundant is equally a great mistake that will continue to lower the morale of staff in the ABC as well as journalists Australia-wide.

Neville Ludbey writes: Will the ABC cut Amanda Vanstone’s and Tom Switzer’s programs — for balance?

Russell Obst writes: I’m not sure where to turn now for trustworthy “deep” news. Does the ABC intend to limit its efforts to the shallow end? It looks a lot like Murdoch has finally got control.

What is the point of investing in trendy new means of dissemination if there’s nothing left to disseminate? I’m utterly disgusted.

Mike Hatton writes: I have watched the ABC without fail for 70 years — but of late it has been out of control. The elimination of local news on Sundays will be a disaster. Who the hell at 80 is going to switch to iview to get local content? The Q+A switch was another disaster now rectified after falling ratings and public pressure. Now the decision to axe Probyn and his position is just another crime being committed by out-of-touch management.

Trevor Hannam writes: Big mistake sacking Andrew Probyn.

Marianne Enoch writes: I have always listened to, and watched, only ABC radio and television (“ABC poised to cut more than 100 jobs in a bid to attract digital audiences”). I have been pilloried for this, even by my own family, but it will remain a fact whatever happens within the ABC. I would be happy if integrity and commitment to quality were to guide programming and decisions made by the ABC but a lack of these standards will mainly result in earlier bedtimes for me. 

It seems that I can look forward to reading in bed for the foreseeable future.

David Bell writes: My concern is not just about Probyn but a bigger issue: the decline of political reporting, particularly of foreign affairs. All my life — I am now 81 — I have been an avid ABC listener/viewer, but no more. I have given up on the ABC as a source of information on Ukraine/AUKUS, the US etc.

It’s not clear what has happened “politically” in the ABC over the past two years but as far as foreign affairs and defence are concerned the fog of war has descended on us courtesy of the ABC — and the rest of the media, it seems. It appears that there has been a palace coup that has replaced competent journalism with obsequious propagandists. There was a restructuring, I think, two years ago, and since then it’s all gone belly-up.

Ukraine is the stand-out on this. Witness Stan Grant’s ejection of a young questioner on Q+A; the egregious repetition of Ukraine propagandists on all news programs; the failure to have ABC reporters stationed in Russia and to fairly feature the Russian view. If I want quality info on this I have to go to YouTube to seek it out.

I want my ABC back, please.

Show me the money

Natalia Soeters writes: Re “Time for political parties to hand back their PwC cash“, the major parties definitely should return the money donated to them by PwC. But I would rather PwC pay the taxpayer back the $420 million it received in contracts. 

Bill Wallace writes: PwC should be immediately banned from any Commonwealth government contracts for at least five years (“PwC’s ‘once-in-a-generation PR disaster’: most Australians want contract bans”). And there should be significant financial penalties for breach of confidence/trust applied to all existing and new contracts, irrespective of the firm. Also, the Commonwealth should look at setting up its own consulting arm. This could be in conjunction with the states.

Rolf Stockburger writes: Consultants — not just PwC — ask you for your watch, tell you what time it is, charge you for it, then hand your watch back.

PwC having vested interests both as a company as well as by individual partners in an education group which actively hires overseas students offering courses that could be considered controversial to our national interests. These offer job opportunities that could include consulting to departments such as Defence, the ATO etc. We have such smart politicians who find it much easier to manage contracts than lead departments and utilities.

Anne Burrows writes: I have been stewing for a while about PwC’s conduct. Nobody has mentioned the word “traitors” in any of the articles about their conduct, selling government inside information to help foreign companies avoid company tax and so deprive Australians of money. This Labor government is such a toady to the multinationals and the fossil fuel industries, too scared to rock the boat. Well it’s got another thing coming when it goes to the next election. Bring on the Greens and the crossbenchers. 

There are lots of other issues where it is letting us down: David McBride (whistleblower) a man with real courage; Beetaloo Basin and Middle Arm Cove Harbour; bowing down to the fracking gods; Julian Assange still in jail; a weak climate change stance; letting the US in over AUKUS; the stance against China.

Cash or credit

David Wright writes: I detest and abhor the influence by lobby groups on our Parliament. This specifically includes unions (“Unions and political donations reform: the exemption that proves the rule”). I am very much for the immediate disclosure of donors and would prefer it started at a figure lower than $1000. It is obvious the Albanese government is swayed by union interference and that of the fossil fuel industries, not to mention the gambling industry.

Perhaps the best course would be to outlaw donations to politicians and political parties completely. Give each candidate a sum of government money to spend on their campaign and allow no other expenditure either from donations or from their private coffers. Perhaps that way we may be able to get some honesty in the system, because there is surely very little now.

John McPhee writes: I can fix the political donation issue: maximum donation of $1500 a year from individuals only — no entities. Real-time disclosure over $500 for individual donations, annual disclosure for aggregate donations of $1500 a year.

Wealthy boomers? Not this one

Tim Stephens writes: I can only partly agree with Benjamin Clark (“Boomers are still spending. We need to hike taxes, not interest rates, to fight inflation“). Rather than using consumption tax that will hurt everyone, especially the poorest, we should be raising income tax. I really don’t understand how raising the price of everything that poor people have to spend their money on is going to help them. Tax levels for those earning more than $100,000 should be going up (not like the stage three tax cuts). The lower tax levels (the 30-cent one) should remain as is. It is the well-off who are doing all the discretionary spending; the less well-off are simply spending all they have to survive. How will raising the price of food, rent etc help them and somehow lower inflation by making things cost more?

It seems I’m one of those supposedly wealthy baby boomers. For me the past few years have been a “super” disaster area. The sharemarket slump from COVID managed to wipe about 10%-15% off the value of my hard-earned savings. Then Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has probably cost an additional 5%-10%. The inflation spike has meant everything is about 7% more expensive… and I don’t get a pay rise. Unlike Australia’s lowest income earners that got a 5.75% increase (and desperately needed too) my income has been reduced by more than 20%. Anyone like to swap?