Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

No-one could accuse Minister Fifield of being a fast mover, and I think this is another example of that. One thing I've had the benefit of since coming to the Senate is being on the Senate environment and communications committees and I had the opportunity to ask questions of Senator Fifield. He very generously takes it easy on new senators, which I'm very appreciative of. I've also taken a bit of an interest in what Senator Fifield and the shadow minister, Michelle Rowland, from the other place, do. One thing that has particularly caught my attention is what the shadow minister, Michelle Rowland, has labelled the 'Fifield triangle'. This is basically where issues relating to the minister's portfolio go to die. There have been plenty of examples of this. The current legislation that we're debating is a prime example. It was first introduced 18 months ago. I think it's come before the House or the Senate, or been listed, something like 10 times without actually coming to a vote. Indeed, we've seen the debacle this week, where he's combined both jobs. We had a debate earlier in the week, then it went away and then it's come back. We sat late last night and here we are again today.

I want to flesh out the Fifield triangle a bit further because I think it's interesting in the current debate. We know that the Australian Communications and Media Authority review took two years, and then sat on the minister's desk for another eight months. We also know that the Game on report, which was about the future of Australian video game development, spent 500 days in the Fifield triangle and still hasn't been released. This is something that the minister is responsible for. We also know that the Australian Communications and Media Authority have gone 18 months with an acting chair, and there is still no permanent appointment to that spot. As I said, we know that the minister has had this legislation on the table for 18 months without actually getting anywhere—such is the incompetence.

But there is one issue that the minister moved really quickly on and that was to give $30 million to Foxtel. When you look at the record of this you see that there is no documentation and very few facts that he has put on the table in this regard. He made a very, very quick decision on that. He announced it as part of this package a couple of months ago. As I mentioned, I had the opportunity to ask questions of the minister at Senate estimates, and basically the best he could come up with was that this was a government decision. On 6 May, he announced that they would provide $30 million to Foxtel to increase coverage of women's and niche sports. It all goes to Foxtel; it all goes to a pay TV operator. People have to pay to actually see this when it goes on TV. When I had the opportunity to ask questions, the best he could come back with, in a lacklustre effort, was that it was a government decision. So $30 million of taxpayer money to 'so call' increase the reach and coverage of women's and niche sports all goes to Foxtel. Subsequently, following an FOI by the ABC, no documents exist. So, basically, it was a decision made by the minister on a whim—no business case, no modelling and no consideration of who this is going to reach.

How are more people going to be able to see this coverage? Foxtel's own figures show that their subscriptions have dropped in the last 12 months, yet the minister stands here with a straight face and says that this is to increase the reach and coverage of women's sport. What an absolute farce! What about the kids in my home state of Queensland? What about the parents who can't afford Foxtel? How are their kids going to be able to see this? They're not going to be inspired by these sports; they won't be able to see this sport. What about a little girl growing up in Frankston, the minister's home state, whose parents can't afford Foxtel? They're going to miss out on this opportunity. The saddest part about this is that they are doing this at a time when women's sport is riding the crest of a wave. We've seen that with the launch of the women's AFL. Senator Farrell might interject here, because his team, the Adelaide Crows, won that first premiership; unfortunately—

Senator Farrell interjecting—

I disagree with that. Unfortunately, they defeated the Brisbane Lions team. We've also seen the women's Big Bash League gain popularity at the same time. We also saw, this year, the domestic netball competition also rise in popularity. So, at a time when there's so much happening in women's sport, in what could have been such a really positive thing—by giving this money to free to air so that every child in Australia could see it—he gives the money to Foxtel so that fewer people can see it. This isn't going to increase the reach or the coverage of women's sport. It's going to mean there will be kids in plenty of parts of Australia who aren't going to have the opportunity to see this. This is a terrible decision by this minister, and it's at a time when women's sport is riding a wave.

We know, from talking to any national sporting organisation in Australia, that sponsorship is so important. What's the key to getting good sponsorship? Free-to-air coverage. If you talk to the AFL and the NRL, they all say that the key to getting sponsors in the door to sponsor your league or your club is free-to-air coverage. Yet, no, he doesn't help them in that regard. He gives it to Foxtel—with no business case, no modelling, no documents. He gives $30 million to Foxtel, a subscription television service that you've got to pay for. This is what this minister has been responsible for. Minister, can you confirm that there was no business case, that there were no documents, that there was no modelling, that Foxtel is a subscription service whose numbers are dropping and that, when it comes to this deal, this had nothing to do with women's sport; it was just a secondary consideration to you pleasing Foxtel by giving them $30 million with no strings attached?