Senator WONG (4:54 PM) —I found it interesting that in his contribution to this debate Senator Eggleston continued the government's recent tradition of politically motivated allegations of bias against the ABC, citing as an instance of the ABC's bias its reporting of `leftie issues' such as Indigenous affairs. I would have thought that Indigenous issues are issues of national importance, not leftie issues. Again, we see that this government really has no basis for genuine allegations of bias against the ABC.

The government's guiding principle when it comes to the ABC appears to be `he who pays the piper calls the tune'. The government approach appears to be one of saying, `We fund you; therefore, you toe the line.' This is not something that is new to the government; it is a view that seems to have affected a number of ministers through the estimates process and thereafter. Until he found out he could not do it, we had Minister McGauran threatening to cut South Australia's science funding if the South Australian government proceeded with plans to defend the state of South Australia from the locating of a nuclear dump there. Then we had Senator Alston saying in relation to the ABC:

It is a pretty blatant threat, isn't it? It is an outrageous attack on the independence of the ABC and it gives the ABC a clear message: `Unless you, the ABC, do as we, the government, wish, we, the government, can defund you.' This is political thuggery at its worst, and to threaten the national broadcaster in this way is, frankly, appalling.

We say this notion of `he who pays the piper calls the tune' is wrong. It is wrong as a matter of principle. It is also wrong because, frankly, Minister, it is not your money; it is taxpayers' money. It flies in the face of the editorial independence that Australians expect and demand of the ABC. Senator Alston also said of the ABC, in the Australian of 29 May:

Accountability does not mean toeing the government line and not saying anything that the government does not like, and it certainly does not mean running government propaganda; it means calling it as you see it and providing balanced, fair and, hopefully, incisive coverage of news and current affairs.

Let us look at the bias that is complained of. One of the instances of bias that Senator Eggleston referred to is that of Eleanor Hall, also from AM, who was accused of anti-Americanism when she said on 31 March:

I find it hard to understand how that could be judged as a biased report. The primary basis of the allegation of bias that Senator Alston peddles about is that the ABC engaged in blatant anti-Americanism. In some ways that is one of the more amusing aspects of this whole debacle: the ABC are not accused of being anti the Howard government but anti-American. It seems to show how desperate the government are to shore up that next invitation to the ranch and how prepared they are to go into battle with the national broadcaster on America's behalf.

Returning to the scrutiny of these allegations of bias, I suggest that any reading of the so-called Alston dossier really would show that the government has a somewhat paranoid response. Linda Mottram, a Walkley award winning journalist who is highly respected, has been one of the targets of the government's attack. One of the reports about which she has been criticised includes the following comment:

I would have thought that was a pretty reasonable comment—if you are suggesting that your weapons are accurate and there are clear reports of civilian casualties then that is a reasonable comment for a journalist to be making.

So just what is Minister Alston doing as communications minister? He is compiling dossiers of examples of bias which we say are flimsy and paranoid at best. He is threatening to defund the ABC if it does not toe the line. He also says he wants an annual report to the parliament by the ABC. He has made the suggestion that the ABC should provide an annual report to the parliament proving empirically that it had been balanced in its news coverage. The mind boggles as to what that actually means. Does that mean a report to the House of Representatives, where the government has a clear majority and members such as those on the other side get to tick off whether or not they think a particular report is sufficiently progovernment or not? Surely this flies in the face of the ABC's charter of independence. One wonders whether this means giving the likes of Ross Cameron a vote on this issue—he has already gone on the public record to demonstrate his contempt for the ABC.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ferguson)—Senator Wong, you should refer to a member in the other place by their proper title. He is `Mr Cameron' or `the member for Parramatta'.

Senator WONG —Today in parliament Minister Alston refused to confirm that his suggested complaints mechanism would be statutorily independent of government. One wonders whether this would be in fact another star chamber approach. What Minister Alston has engaged in—ably assisted by some senators on the other side through the Senate estimates process—is an extraordinary attempt at political interference by the government in the ABC's editorial content. We say this is political thuggery at its worst, and it ought to be most strongly argued against and most strongly opposed in this parliament. The ABC is our national broadcaster. It is entitled to call things as it sees fit, it is entitled to fair comment and it is entitled to disagree with the government and also with the opposition—which, to be honest, it does on a fairly regular basis. I support the continued editorial independence of the ABC, and it seems to me that some of the attacks on it have been thinly veiled politically motivated attacks—including flimsy allegations of bias and, frankly, unprecedented suggestions of defunding the ABC. (Time expired)