Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Coonan, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Does the minister recall trying to use Channel 7’s decision not to show the Bledisloe Cup rugby union live across Australia as justification for overhauling the antisiphoning list? Has the minister seen comments by Seven CEO, Mr David Leckie, that:

Seven broadcast coverage in every market—including live coverage in Sydney and Brisbane. The match was also available on pay television in every state. It is the perfect example of how the current anti-siphoning regime actually works.

Can the minister explain what was objectionable about Channel 7’s conduct? Wouldn’t a decision to take the Wallabies matches off the antisiphoning list mean that people who currently watch rugby union for free would have to pay for it? Why should anyone relying on free-to-air television for sport have any confidence in a minister who clearly does not understand how the antisiphoning regime—which she is supposed to be responsible for—actually works?

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

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister able to tell us who purchased the rights to the Wallabies matches, if you actually know? Again, given your criticism of the Wallabies broadcast, I repeat Mr Leckie’s comments. Is it ‘the perfect example of how the current antisiphoning regime actually works’? Explain your criticisms. At a time of rising interest rates and soaring petrol prices, can the minister guarantee that the introduction of a ‘use it or lose it’ system will not see Australian families having to pay at least $600 a year to watch sporting events that they currently see for free?

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

I suggest to Senator Conroy that he starts with getting his facts straight. It is interesting that after his great carry-on last week industry representatives said his comments were absolute codswallop. That is exactly what Senator Conroy is: nothing but a lot of codswallop. He was told by one commentator to go and do a work experience course and learn a bit about broadcasting. We know that Mr Lindsay Tanner is brought in whenever Senator Conroy slips up, disappears or cannot handle his portfolio. He should whip out and learn a few facts about his portfolio. Then he can ask a question.

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.