THE ABC gives itself a pat on the back for its coverage of the 2004 election. It met the goals it set.

Extensive comprehensive and competent were the claims of the Election Coverage Review Committee Chair Murray Green.

He also said that the editorial expectations of impartiality and balance were met.

The ABC guidelines are that government and opposition receive equal coverage, other parties appraised on the basis of news value.

They allowed party election broadcasts that included 5 ‘minor parties’, including the Coalition partner.

Only the 2 majors had their policy launches broadcast.

Some may think that the limited coverage of the minor parties by the ABC is even handed giving the minors a very good run.

All we really have is a markedly less biased coverage than that of the privately owned advertising based media. 

The ABC may view its role as the public broadcaster to only cover 2 parties thoroughly, so maintaining the status quo. However, this does not sit well with the view that a democracy should be about debate around diverse views and exposure of the policies of a range of parties at election time should occur to allow the voters to make an informed choice about the governance of the nation. 

The view that there are only 2 parties competing for the leading role may be based on a view from the 1950s, or it may reflect the biases of the staff. It does not engender a fuller discourse about our polity.

Broadcast the election launch of each registered political party

Indeed, can they nominate the party that, if they had a lower house majority would refuse government.  Perhaps such a party should be excluded from full coverage, but I am yet to hear of one.

The ABC should review its policies about Federal election coverage to;

[a] broadcast the election launch of each registered political party that has members in any two parliaments in Australia. This removes single state single issue parties from the contest but does not inhibit a party popular in 2 or more states that wishes to move into the Federal sphere.

seriously attempt to give each of those parties equal coverage through all their broadcasting, including the party election broadcasts. This gives us at least a number of leaders to be assailed by and may return us to the ABC’s preferred model of 2 through our voting pastterns. Of course, another result may occur. However, that is not for the ABC to predetermine.

[c] offer to hold a debate, any 2 or more parties who will debate each other. Yes, the majors may refuse, or they may send a lesser light. This does not prevent a range of parties being allowed a pitch and to be compared.

The role of the ABC as the national broadcaster is to inform us and a number of Australians are already wanting to see the other parties in parliaments, they loyally support them election after election.

Surely it is not the considered view of the ABC that Australians are incapable of discerning between more than 2 choices.

You may not like my criteria and may wish to set others. The primary votes for each party may be a source of inspiration, or indeed crossing the hurdle to become funded, that is more than 5% of the vote.

We are in a period of diverse views and it is time Australia’s national broadcaster covered them at election time.

phill Parsons first voted in a referendum that made Aboriginals Australians [shame on all you racists] and even remembers the pulling power of Ming and even the loyalty given to Cocky Calwell. Therefore he feels competent to judge whether there are more than 2 choices.