Mr STEPHEN SMITH (5:29 PM) —On behalf of the opposition, I propose to outline the opposition's response to the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 . This bill has been hanging around for a couple of years. This bill was presented to the previous parliament and lapsed with the last parliament at the 1998 election. It was presented in substantially similar terms and has previously been the subject of consideration by a Senate committee.

Last week, the government indicated at short notice that it proposed to ensure passage of the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 and the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 through the House and the Senate this week. I first saw a copy of the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 on Friday last week but, since that time—through discussion with industry and between the government and the opposition—we have got ourselves into a position where we ought to be able to see the passage of these two bills through the House tonight. Whether the Senate passes them in the course of this week is a matter for the exercise of the Senate's discretion. We would hope that they exercise that discretion wisely.

The government has requested that these two bills be passed through the House tonight. As a consequence, I will not take as much time as I would otherwise in outlining the opposition's response to the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 , so as to ensure that my colleagues have plenty of time to deal with their own contributions. Amendments have been circulated on behalf of the government and amendments have been circulated in my name to the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 . But, on the basis of discussion outside the chamber in the last couple of days, my understanding is that these amendments will be agreed all round.

The Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 as presented to the parliament deals essentially with three separate subject matters. The first is the anti-hoarding provisions. These buttress the anti-siphoning provisions which were introduced by the previous Labor government. The anti-siphoning provisions have the effect that iconic or classic sports events continue to be shown on free-to-air TV and are not only available on pay TV. The anti-hoarding provisions do precisely that: they seek to ensure that a commercial free to air operator who has the rights to broadcast live a particular listed sporting event—an event or series of events which is listed under the anti-siphoning regime—cannot hoard those. If they have the rights, they are obliged to show those events live. If they do not show those events live, there is a regime which is proposed in accordance with this bill, which I will come to subsequently.

The second discrete subject area in the bill as presented to the House is in respect of retransmission—what regime ought to apply to the retransmission by pay TV or the subscription TV industry of free-to-air channel broadcasts, what are the underlying rights of the copyright holders and what regime ought to be put in place for retransmission. The current law, reflected by both the Broadcasting Services Act and a Federal Court decision, has the effect that the pay TV industry can effectively retransmit free-to-air commercial broadcasts without requiring permission or consent or payment of any fee either to the free-to-air commercial station or to any underlying copyright holder.

The third discrete area is in respect of broadcast by pay TV into regional free-to-air areas. A pay TV provider or a member of the subscription TV industry may well, as part of its channel selection, seek to broadcast by way of retransmission free-to-air channels from a metropolitan area into a regional market. The bill proposes restrictions to be placed on that retransmission so as to ensure that a metropolitan free-to-air channel rebroadcast or retransmitted by a pay TV channel does not disturb the sanctity of the regional television market. I think that is known as `sectoral industry policy', which has abounded in public policy approach to media and broadcasting for a considerable period of time.

As I indicated, these substantive provisions were contained in the bill presented to the 1998 parliament and were the subject, subsequently, of a Senate committee report. In the course of that report, Labor senators recommended—as far as the retransmission provisions were concerned—that, in the absence of a commercial agreement between a free-to-air commercial TV and a subscription TV industry player, there ought to be some arbitration or conciliation mechanism and that, in the anti-hoarding areas, there ought to be timetables put in place so as to ensure the timely arrangements for decisions in respect of anti-hoarding.

I will deal with retransmission first because the government amendments which have been circulated have the effect of excising or deleting the retransmission provisions in this bill. That is because the free-to-air industry, represented by FACTS, has failed to agree on any of these matters with the subscription TV industry, represented by ASTRA, which has failed to agree to any of the suggestions I have made outside the chamber in respect of appropriate arrangements.

In the absence of any agreement between the industry—in the absence of any divine inspiration which has seen the opposition able to agree with the pay TV industry, the pay TV industry agree with the free to air industry or any of the above agree with the government—a sensible course has occurred. It is proposed that this area be excised so as to ensure the effective non-contentious areas, which make a positive benefit to public policy in the areas of anti-hoarding and transmission into regional areas, can be enacted in the course of this year. The effect of the government amendments as circulated, as far as the retransmission parts of the legislation are concerned, is to effectively withdraw that part of the bill from the House's consideration.

Retransmission will of course come back to confront the parliament as early as next year. The Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Bill 1999 , which has previously been before the House, was the subject yesterday of a report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. It deals with retransmission in the digital age, so the parliament and the members of this House will be confronted with the retransmission issue, as will the industry, pay TV and free-to-air TV—both in its analog and digital variety—before too much more time expires. I indicate on behalf of the opposition that we support the government's amendment to excise the retransmission provisions from the current bill.

As I indicated, the anti-hoarding provisions complement and buttress the anti-siphoning arrangements put in place by the previous Labor government and they are supported by the current government. The substantive and simple effect of the anti-hoarding provisions is that, if a commercial TV free-to-air operator has the live to air rights for a particular sporting event or series of events which are in the list of events contained in the anti-siphoning regime and it proposes not to show that event live, the free-to-air commercial broadcaster is obliged to offer that event to the national broadcasters for a cursory fee of $1. If either of the national broadcasters—the ABC or SBS—fail or refuse to take up, or exercise their discretion not to take up, the prospect of broadcasting that event live, then effectively, by default, that event can go to the pay TV industry.

The amendments which have been, or shortly will be, circulated in my name reflect the minority report of Labor senators that there ought to be timely consideration of these matters. The effect of these amendments is that, at least 30 days prior to the commencement of an event or series of events covered by the anti-siphoning and anti-hoarding provisions, a free-to-air commercial broadcaster must exercise a decision as to whether it is proposing to broadcast live or not. If it decides not to broadcast live then, not less than 30 days prior to the event, it must make the offer to a national broadcaster and the national broadcasters have seven days within which to make a decision as to their own transmission of that live event. That timely mechanism is in order to give the pay TV industry or the relevant subscription TV provider the opportunity to alert its customers to the proposed subscription TV broadcast of a particular live event. I understand that the government has no difficulties with the amendments circulated to that effect.

The third area covered by this bill is, as I indicated earlier, the provisions to ensure that regional free-to-air TV markets are not disturbed by a retransmission by a subscription TV operator of a metropolitan broadcaster. As I have indicated, those provisions are supported by the government. The government has also circulated amendments relating to the anti-siphoning provisions. The insertion of the anti-siphoning provisions causes one to grapple with the fact that we live in a big country where the sun comes up on one side and takes a long time to go down on the other side. This is the cause of the different time zones between Western Australia, the Northern Territory and South Australia, and some regional areas of New South Wales. The government has circulated amendments which have the effect of compartmentalising a western and a southern time zone, which consists of Western Australia, South Australia, the Northern Territory and Broken Hill.

The problem arises in the following way. One of the events, or series of events, covered by the anti-hoarding and anti-siphoning regime, as it exists and as is proposed by the bill, is one-day cricket. If you are an avid cricket fan—which I understand is contagious in this place—and a one-day World Series cricket game commences in Sydney at 2 p.m. and concludes at 10 p.m. Sydney time and you happen to be interested in watching that game in Western Australia and that game was broadcast live in Western Australia during daylight-saving hours, which generally apply in the eastern states around the festive season, then the transmission of that game live into Western Australia would see it conclude at 7 p.m. The obvious argument here is: do you advantage the consumer by insisting upon a live broadcast into Western Australia or do you disadvantage the consumer by not insisting upon a live broadcast into Western Australia? The road which the government's amendments go down seeks to effectively confirm what occurs at the moment in practice—that is, if there is a one-day game commencing in Sydney at 2 p.m. and concluding at 10 p.m. Sydney time, then it is shown in Western Australia commencing at 2 p.m. Western Australian time and concluding at 10 p.m. Western Australian time. It is shown as if it were live but with the two- or three-hour gap, depending upon daylight saving.

I must say that one tends to pick up two completely different views as far as consumers are concerned, and I have experience only from a Western Australian point of view. My view as a consumer is that, if the game is happening live, I would prefer to see it live. If I listen to it on the radio live—which is invariably the case with an ABC radio broadcast—once I know the result I am not interested in the outcome and will not watch it on TV. I find it impossible to isolate myself—put myself in a cone of silence—and therefore put myself into a position where I do not know the outcome of the game prior to its telecast. The contrary view is that people do put themselves in a cone of silence, and they would prefer to get home from work, discharge their obligations to their spouses and their children and sit down at 7 p.m. western standard time and watch the last three hours of the game, either in blissful ignorance as to the outcome of the game or with complete indifference as to the outcome of the game.

In Western Australia, we have been trained on delayed broadcasts of West Coast Eagles and Dockers games. People will avidly listen to the radio broadcast of a live West Coast Eagles or Dockers game on a Sunday afternoon from Subiaco Oval, hear the result and then walk straight into their lounge rooms to watch the beginning of the game on a delayed telecast from Subiaco Oval.

I have no objection to the course that the government proposes to go down. It is of convenience to the programming of the free-to-air television industry and, whilst that is a relevant consideration, in the end there is a relevant consideration for consumers as well. Whilst I have no objection to the government's amendment in this regard, I do think that it would be appropriate, after a period of time of consumer experience of this regime, to review these provisions to see whether the consumer might have a different or contrary view.

As part of the amendments which I have circulated, there is a provision for the anti-hoarding provisions of this bill to be the subject of a review by the minister after two years and a report to parliament. The minister has indicated to me that he has no difficulty with that amendment. I was quite happy to confine the review to the western/southern time zone amendments. But the minister, as I understand it, was entirely happy to have a general review, and I am grateful in that respect.

To draw those threads to a conclusion, the opposition supports the bill as presented and as proposed to be amended by the government. We support the anti-hoarding regime as a complement to the anti-syphoning regime. We support the notion of the protection of a regional free-to-air TV market in the face of retransmission of a metropolitan TV market via a subscription TV provider. We understand the reasons for the effective withdrawal of the retransmission provisions of this bill.

I again urge the two arms of the industry, the subscription television industry and the free-to-air television industry, to seek to do their best to come to an amicable agreement on this matter. If they do not, as sure as night follows day, sooner rather than later, the parliament will find a solution for them. In this area, in my view, it is always better for the industry to find a solution which suits them commercially and in practice which is in the public interest rather than for the parliament or the Senate to find a solution which they may well discover is imposed upon them. So they are effectively on notice both so far as concerns retransmission in analog and retransmission in digital, with the digital agenda to be presented to us in the course of next year.

Concerning the government's amendments, in respect of the anti-hoarding western/southern time zone provisions, they are supported but supported on the basis that the government supports the review of these provisions, which I understand to be the case, and on the basis that the government supports the timely mechanisms which would seek to ensure that orderly decisions are made in this way. That approach should see this bill pass through the House tonight. Hopefully, we will then see the Senate, before it rises at the end of this week, do the right thing to enable the enactment of these provisions, which I do think add to better public policy and better broadcasting and media arrangements in this country.