Senator CALVERT (2:15 PM) —My question is directed to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston. Minister, how is the government enabling the ABC to take full advantage of the new media opportunities which are rapidly emerging around the world as a result of the information revolution? Is the minister aware of any alternative policy approaches that might compromise the independence of the ABC? Is the government giving these any serious consideration?

Senator ALSTON (Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) —Yes, we are very concerned to ensure that the ABC is in a position to take full advantage of the new media opportunities. In fact, we have been very supportive of the ABC web site, ABC Online, which is now in the top 10—about No. 5—with something like three million hits a week. We certainly take the view that the ABC from the board down are very conscious of the new opportunities and the fact that, if they do not embrace the on-line world, they could very easily be left behind. We also take the view that everyone from the board down is acutely conscious of the statutory obligations of the board, that the independence of the ABC is protected by law and that the ABC ought to be allowed to get on with its business. It is not our job to second guess. It is not our job to intervene in commercial arrangements.

It was very surprising indeed when we saw that there was effectively a disclosure of a very unremarkable deal that the ABC is negotiating with Telstra which would see some of its content provided on a non-exclusive basis with full editorial control residing in the ABC and in response to that an absolutely furious outburst by the shadow minister, Mr Stephen Smith. It is quite extraordinary because he has kept a remarkably low profile to date, but all of a sudden he called a doorstop in the middle of estimates committees and said, `This deal is red hot. The board should not sign. This is a proposal that is totally unacceptable. I call upon the board to ensure that no such exclusive content proposal or deal with Telstra is permitted prior to a thorough parliamentary investigation.' In other words, he was vetoing it. He was stepping right into the ring and saying, `The ABC is not allowed to go ahead with these things because we don't want it to. We, the ALP, want to stop the ABC from getting on with its business.' That is what his proposal was. In fact, he went even further yesterday. He called another doorstop and said that he wanted to have an inquiry into the role of the ABC in the future, the role of the ABC in the digital world. He wanted to know whether the charter was still relevant.

Mansfield recommended some very sensible changes to the ABC charter, wanted to protect news and current affairs, wanted to protect regional Australia, wanted to protect children's television. The ALP would not have a bar of it. It did not want to touch the charter—nothing wrong with it at all. Has anyone ever suggested anything wrong with this deal? Has anyone ever suggested that we are unclear about the role of the ABC? We are not unclear. The public is not unclear. But all of a sudden the shadow minister is so unclear that he wants to veto a deal and he wants a thorough, comprehensive investigation of all that the ABC has ever done in its life and is likely to do in the future.

It is not surprising that one of the staunchest defenders of ABC independence and impartiality, Mr Johns, should come out and comprehensively refute all that Mr Smith had to say about these matters. He made it clear that he did not understand what coproductions were, that he did not understand that the integrity and independence of the ABC was protected at all times. So in response to that, what we had was Mr Smith putting out another press release saying that all he had done was make an `unremarkable suggestion' that there should be further scrutiny. This is spin doctoring at its best, or worst, because in one breath he said they ought to stop this deal, that it was red hot and they should not sign and now he says, `All I was doing was suggesting that there ought to be a little bit of parliamentary scrutiny.' He ended up saying—this is the ultimate slur—`People will make their own judgments as to who is right or wrong in respect of this issue, but it is sometimes a helpful guide in making that judgment to look at the company one keeps.' What is he on about? He is not just taking the political opportunist line that my enemy's enemy is my friend; what he is saying is that my enemy's friend is my enemy. (Time expired)