Should the ABC be privatised? A modest (re-e)valuation

ABC staff walked off the job last week and the public broadcaster immediately switched to BBC programmes. Prof. Vince Hooper discusses whose interests ABC serves now; citizens or others?

There’s something deeply self-referential about the ABC’s coverage of its own strike. This is the media equivalent of a surgeon live-tweeting his own appendectomy; It is technically impressive, editorially questionable, and deeply revealing of an institution that has lost its capacity to embarrass.

On March 22, 2026, ABC staff marched 24 hours off work – Australia’s public broadcaster’s first strike in two decades. Which tells you that conditions there either became excruciatingly unbearable, or that it took 20 years for a publicly funded workforce to recover the existential urgency of those who were slightly distressed. ABC chief executive Hugh Marks later met with Union delegates, mediated by the Fair Work Commission, and We prepared a revised fee proposal, Completed with new provisions forprogression through pay banding‘. Nearly 60% of staff had voted against the original agreement. Unions will now “consult members before staff votes.” The ABC News website duly reported all this with the same impartiality with which it covered the cyclones in northern Queensland, as if it were an act of God and not a payroll act.

So when did the pickets rise? ABC’s news channel switched to BBC World News. Radio National was using BBC World Service simulcast by default. News Breakfast, 7.30, morning, AFTERNOON, Late Night Live – all gone, replaced by the contents of the mother ship in London. Nationwide, the 7pm newscast has been replaced by a repeat newscast. Australian Story – Profile of the Olympic swimmer Michael KlimFor those keeping score – and 7.30The country’s flagship current affairs program has been replaced by recurring programs Difficult Exam. Three-quarters of Melbourne’s usual evening audiences are shut out altogether; Nationally, viewership dropped from 948,000 to 308,000. Triple-J played pre-programmed music without a host; many listeners claimed this was an improvement.

Let this calm down for a moment. A sovereign nation’s national broadcaster, funded by more than $1 billion a year, reverted to its colonial default settings the moment staff withdrew their jobs. Australians call ABC “Auntie”; It’s a nickname taken from the BBC, naturally. When the strike began, Auntie did what aunts do in a crisis: She called her mother in London and asked her to take over. If privatization means anything, it certainly means not handing over your entire broadcast schedule to the BBC when someone objects to the pay band.

One is reminded old DuPont decomposition: Break down any initiative into its components and you’ll discover what really drives the turnaround. The return on taxpayer equity for ABC is: leveraged. More than a billion dollars a year in public funding produces an asset whose market value would make a venture capitalist cry — were anyone brave or foolish enough to attempt it. And not with joy.

Privatization buffs will note that ABC already behaves like a private company in every respect, but here’s the kicker: it doesn’t have to generate revenue. It has a board of directors, a chief executive, a corporate strategy, enterprise bargaining agreements, industrial disputes and – if the Friday night comedy show is any guide – a product development pipeline that would interest even the most patient shareholder.

In finance, we call this the “free option.” While the ABC benefits from all the upside of brand recognition and cultural responsibility, Australian taxpayers bear the downside. The strike itself was a master class in option pricing: Staff exercised their right to withdraw labor, knowing that the key asset – guaranteed government funding – would not be damaged. Try this on a trading network and see how long the put option in your employment stays in the money.

The case against privatization is, oddly enough, also financial. ABC, this one Public benefit with negative externalities – or, to put it less charitably, an organization whose outputs are consumed by people who don’t want them and whose payments are paid by people who didn’t choose them. This is of course the textbook definition of tax.

But the satirist must stop here and acknowledge a serious point. Regional Australia, which is not within Uber Eats’ Ultimo range, is dependent on ABC services in a way that no private operator can replicate. No rational non-profit person would operate an office in Longreach. The market for cyclone warnings in the Torres Strait is, to use the technical term, thin. If you privatize ABC, you won’t get a leaner, more efficient broadcaster. In Parramatta you get a metropolitan podcast network with an archive of nostalgia and a very expensive property portfolio.

So the real question is not whether ABC will be privatized, but whether it will be privatized. priced. Currently ABC is operating in a valuation vacuum. There is no share price to discipline management, no earnings per share to embarrass the board, and no threat of a hostile takeover to focus minds. The closest thing to a market signal is the Senate Estimates hearing; It is to corporate governance what a town hall meeting is to urban planning; loud, theatrical and completely fruitless.

What would happen if we applied a simple discounted cash flow (DCF)? ABC receives about $1 billion a year. Discount this at the ten-year Commonwealth bond interest rate, currently running at 5 per cent thanks to the Iran war, and you get a residual value of around $20 billion. That makes it worth roughly one-third of ABC Woodside Energy, At least it produces something for which people are willing to pay voluntarily. Be generous, drop the discount rate to 4% and ABC is still barely half the size of Woodside. Of course, a DCF assumes that the cash flows are: acquiredThis leads to a category error deep enough to make any accounting professor reach for the ribbon.

Here’s a deeper irony. ABC’s industrial dispute is the strongest argument against privatization; Not because the dispute is unfair, but because it reveals what the ABC has quietly become: a sheltered workshop for the professional class. Consider demographics. The average ABC employee is highly educated, metropolitan, and culturally progressive; that is, indistinguishable from the average ABC viewer; That is, ABC has achieved remarkable success in building a business whose producers and consumers are the same people. In any other industry we would call this a closed loop. In public broadcasting, we call this “reflecting the national conversation.”

If you privatize, you don’t liberate the market. You simply funnel the subsidy from the state budget into the advertising market, where it is laundered through programmatic ad technology and pops up in the blink of an eye as content indistinguishable from what Channel Nine currently produces.

ABC does not need privatization. It needs what every overleveraged, undermanaged, strategically confused organization needs: a margin call. Not in terms of its financing, but in terms of its purpose. If an organization can cover its own strike without irony, broadcast its own industrial grievances, and present wage-setting negotiations in the public interest with an honest face, the problem is not in the ownership structure. The problem is that no one in the building can hear the market laughing.

Meanwhile, unions will also consult their members. Members will vote. Salary bands will be rearranged. Billions of dollars will flow. And somewhere in Adelaide, there’s an audience watching us 7.30 and i bought it Difficult Exam instead he will sit quietly with the feeling that ABC has finally answered his own question.

Professor Vince Hooper is a proud Australian-British citizen and professor of finance and discipline at the SP Jain School of Global Management, which has campuses in London, Dubai, Mumbai, Singapore and Sydney.

Support independent journalism Subscribe to IA.