Only now, as I approach the completion of my fourth year in the role, have references to my being the ‘new’ managing director of the ABC faded. After all, the ABC’s legendary chief executive Charles Moses, held the position for 30 years; his successor, Talbot Duckmanton, 17 years.

In the context of the ABC’s organisational history, four years seems like a fleeting moment. It’s a context that has wider application.

The lightning speed with which new technology is being developed and adopted, the flow-on effects of changing consumer behaviour and expectations and disruptions to the business models for delivery news, information and entertainment – all these make these four years in our industry seem like dog years.

Change that would once have occurred within the span of a generation is now experienced in the space of a few years.

This environment makes us seriously consider what we are delivering and how we deliver it. As public broadcasters reliant on the trust and financial support of the public, we look at what services we are uniquely positioned to provide, what our place in the marketplace is and how we ourselves must change in response to changes that are all around us.

From time to time in Australia there is debate about the ABC’s need to be fair, balanced and impartial. Well, when considering the role of the ABC in Australian life, I am firmly a conservative. At the same time, looking to the future for the public broadcaster, I am a liberal, a progressive.

Being both conservative and progressive means there’s equal opportunity for criticism from both sides. If it seems like a contradiction, it’s one that will enable to the ABC to prosper and survive. As Tancredi said in The Leopard: “If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change”.

Let me explain why I am a conservative on some matters involving the ABC. The Charter and Act that came with the transformation of the ABC into a corporation in 1983 set out a number of principles that govern our operations.

Considering these were enacted a year before the birth of the inventor of Facebook, those principles remain remarkably robust and relevant to this digital era.

Let me highlight three key principles derived from that enabling legislation that are driving strategy for the future of the ABC.

The first principle is that the ABC is not a niche broadcaster. The Charter asks that we provide content of wide appeal and content that is specialist in nature.

Consequently, we look to engage not only with small communities of interest but to also bring the nation together around content that will generate critical mass.

So ratings do matter to us, but they are not the only thing that matters. In the heart of prime time, we deliver programs on science and religion, arts programs, specialist documentaries, serious news and analysis that would never get a run on commercial free-to-air television.

We have a radio network, Radio National, which devotes most of its airtime to specialist content.

The ABC’s strength then, as now, came from the diversity of content – both specialist and of wide appeal.

Some of our TV programs can attract 25 per cent of the free-to-air audience. Others struggle for a quarter of that. Our Local Radio network can generate four times the audience of some of our specialist radio networks.

But together, side-by-side, these constitute a strong and credible ABC experience that both meets audience needs and has significant impact on Australian thinking, imagination and culture. By being a broadcaster for all Australians and part of the experience of all Australians, a connection with the Australian people has been created and it has continued across generations. This connection has been key to our ongoing financial support from Canberra.

It means that on content such as news and current affairs, like our popular authentically local radio network, the ABC has become a place where Australians come together to listen to one another, to assess and discuss the great issues of the day.

A shared space for the nation. A commons in an increasingly fragmented world. Whether popular or specialist, what the ABC delivers is trusted, distinctive and of quality. And Australians turn to the ABC confident that they will find content that embodies these values, that has passed the test of quality and distinctiveness.

The second principle from the ABC Charter that guides us is that the ABC should, when making content decisions, take account of what is being offered by commercial and community broadcasters. As you can see, there’s a direct link to the first principle about widely appealing and specialist content.

There are now new and extreme pressures on commercial media, and because there are, it’s been suggested that certain markets today should be serviced exclusively by commercial broadcasters with neither contribution nor competition from the public broadcaster. Australian civic and cultural life would be poorer for this.

James Murdoch in last year’s MacTaggart lecture gave us News Corporation’s Head Office view on this. Attacking the BBC, Mr Murdoch said public sector broadcasters should vacate key areas of service to let the market be satisfied by private sector corporations.

Naturally, there have been echoes and minor variations on that line from some of News Corporations branch offices and investments in Australia – particularly the pay-TV sector.

They argued against the ABC offering a children’s channel because pay-TV offers channels for children. They argued against an ABC news channel because pay-TV offers news channels.

The argument seems to be because pay-TV offers specialist content, the ABC should not.

The logical conclusion to this would be the ABC’s exclusion from television altogether. Leaving it to the market to provide.

This is a wilful misreading of the ABC’s Charter obligation to take account of what is being offered in the market. Taking account of the commercial sector does not mean the ABC must avoid any activity a commercial player is providing.

And it never has. The ABC has delivered quality news on television for more than 50 years. Every free-to-air television network has offered news. None of these free-to-air networks suggested that news be limited to commercial providers, that the ABC not deliver nightly news simply because they could deliver it. The consensus was that the best result for the public would, in fact, come from both.

In looking at new services, we need always to consider the distinctiveness of what we provide, how we can meet audience needs, and whether it represents a good investment of taxpayers’ money.

With the possible exception of financial journalism, investment in quality news – international, investigative, detailed analytical reporting – has always been subsidised.

Through classified advertising, or benevolent proprietors, or funding through public broadcasting – valued services the market cannot support directly on its own, have nevertheless been provided.

The cross-subsidy of quality Murdoch publications like The Times of London and The Australian has been well-documented.

In an Australian context, the demise of most of the long-time media barons and family ownership structures around media organisations has inevitably led commercial broadcasters to first reduce the priority given to, and then reduce investment in, serious news and current affairs.

The evidence is strongest in radio and in regional areas, but also in the major television networks.

If the product doesn’t deliver profits, commercial investors must first slash costs, then investment, then simply walk away. They carry no overarching commitment to journalism as a public good, as something inherently necessary in a society with responsible government and accountable public and private institutions. Their brief is to maximise the return to shareholders. That is their responsibility and our systems of corporate governance and accountability would not have it any other way.

But now, after years of commercial market cuts to investment in news and current affairs, we’re in a good position to appreciate the wisdom of a continuing public investment in the ABC’s news service.

Our strategy is built upon a third principle as well which, like the Charter, derives from the ABC Act. That principle is the Board’s duty to ensure the ABC provides the maximum benefit to the Australian people on the public investment in the ABC.

Our new news channel, ABC News 24, will do just that when it launches this year.

The biggest cost in creating a news channel is in the reporting teams on the ground. We have that – nearly 1,000 journalists working locally, nationally and internationally. I suspect we have more people working in our international bureaux than all other Australian media outlets combined.

Teams in 60 local radio stations around the country. A news radio station. Big capital city news rooms. Vast experience. And, by implementing new technology and work processes, we have made significant savings in our television production model – and are therefore able to redirect this operational money to fund the channel.

So for no additional call on taxpayers, we will deliver this important new service free of charge, available to every Australian home. Those who said it was scandalous that the ABC would create a digital children’s TV channel with additional public funds then said it was scandalous that the ABC would create a news channel without additional public funds. Critics like these are difficult to please.

But for the Board, the ABC’s News channel is a clear example of how, by leveraging off current spending and expertise built up over decades and through hard work and internal reinvestment, the ABC will deliver maximum benefit to the Australian public.

By adherence to these guiding principles, enshrined in our Charter and our Act, we continue to serve the Australian public well and ensure the ABC remains an important, credible and connected part of the Australian media landscape.

These are demanding times. There are countless new pressures on media organisations every day. Understandably, those in the media who have been long accustomed to the good years of sustained economic and sectoral growth are finding the lean years particularly difficult. Yet, the answers to these challenges will be equally difficult.

James Murdoch’s proposal – that when commercial media are in trouble, public media should be shut out – comes dressed as a solution, an easy answer. Yet it’s an answer that is in the interests only of his shareholders, rather than the interests of our owners, the Australian people. As Adam Smith would say, in this case the private corporation’s shareholder interests are “in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public.”

In looking for answers, it’s important to hold tight to what is working, what has delivered and continues to deliver. To what has been valued in the past and may have an even more important role in the future.

It is why I am happy to debate the role of the ABC. It’s why so many Australians will fight hard to defend it, protect it and secure its future.