Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Conroy for the question. As usual, he fundamentally misunderstands what the antisiphoning scheme is all about, and he certainly does not understand what I said. What I said was that the Channel 7 example was to indicate that consumers’ perceptions about the antisiphoning scheme do not accord with what they expect. As we all know—and the Ashes was a very good example—people expect to see events on free-to-air television, and they do not necessarily expect events on the antisiphoning list to be shown on pay TV. I was speaking about a consumer perception and that is what the comment related to.

One of the most problematic elements of broadcasting does involve the regulation of sports rights. I would have thought that those on the other side—indeed, all Australians—would want to ensure that the antisiphoning scheme works the way in which it was intended, not the way in which it was not intended. There are some instances where events are acquired and hoarded and are not otherwise shown. Sometimes the antisiphoning list can have the perverse effect that events on the antisiphoning list are not shown free to air—rather than being shown either on pay or free-to-air television and being available to as many Australians as wish to enjoy these events.

Put simply, the rules were introduced to ensure that events of national significance and cultural importance would continue to be available on free-to-air television, despite the introduction of subscription television. I would have thought that Senator Conroy would be the first to scream if the antisiphoning rules were not working in the way in which they were intended. The rules operate to ensure that pay television licensees may not acquire pay TV broadcast rights until the free-to-air broadcasters have either declined to acquire the rights or the event is de-listed. Even though the list was pruned in 2004—and Senator Conroy screamed about that too—it still contains more than 1,300 individual events.

The government plans to review the scheme’s operation and the rationale—no doubt there will be one—for its continued existence in 2009, prior to the expiration of the current list that is in operation until 2010, in connection with the digital switch-over and in the light of developments on convergent platforms. The government is certainly committed to ensuring sports events of national significance remain on free-to-air television.

Contrary to popular belief, the antisiphoning scheme does not guarantee that any particular event will be shown on free-to-air television or that the event will be shown live or uninterrupted. It merely allows free-to-air broadcasters the first right to purchase sports rights. The outcry during the last Ashes series—with Senator Conroy yelling and screaming on behalf of England—was a case in point. Despite a public outpouring of emotion, the free-to-air broadcasters could not make a commercial case for buying the rights. SBS saw an opportunity and successfully purchased the rights, and I think that we all very much enjoyed seeing the Ashes. The similar outcry over Channel 7’s plans was simply an indication that consumer perception is that consumers are going to be able to see every event on the list free and uninterrupted, and that is not the way the list works. That is the very point that is being made. (Time expired)