Senator FAULKNER (4:05 PM) —Today the Labor Party is raising a matter of public importance—an issue of great significance to the millions of sports fans throughout Australia. It is the dismal lack of coverage of the current Australian cricket tour of the West Indies. It is a matter of great concern to Australian cricket fans that, in the absence of a subscription to Foxtel, the only coverage available is a sporadic and inadequate ABC radio commentary.

I invite senators to consider the facts. There is not one minute's live coverage of either test or one-day cricket on this tour on free-to-air television. There is no highlights package on free-to-air television. What is left is an ABC broadcast which runs through the night but ceases at six o'clock on most mornings as the regular breakfast shows go to air. This can mean up to 3½ hours of commentary is lost.

Senators do not need to be reminded of the great significance to Australian sports fans of any cricket test series. Historically, the rivalry between Australia and the West Indies is great, and I think this latest series has served to remind us why that is the case. Both sides of this chamber acknowledge that the availability of test cricket coverage is a matter of public importance.

It was a little over four years ago when the then ALP government was the target of significant criticism from the coalition on the matter of television coverage of the 1995 Australian cricket tour of the West Indies. In March of that year, the Senate was subjected to a full-frontal assault by Liberal Party senators, who expressed their great concern at the prospect that coverage of the tour would be limited to a small pay television provider and would thereby be lost to the average cricket fan. Senators Alston, Ferguson, Crane and Tierney, among others, stood in this chamber and—with all the sincerity that they could collectively muster—pleaded with the government to guarantee that the Australian viewing public would not be denied their right to watch our team in action in the Caribbean.

Senator Tierney went as far as putting to this chamber a motion that condemned the government for its failure to act to ensure free-to-air coverage. It accused the responsible minister of buck-passing, insisted that the minister—not the television networks—take responsibility for ensuring free-to-air coverage and, last but not least, demanded that the government act to protect the rights of millions of low income viewers who relied on free-to-air television to see the West Indies cricket telecast.

At about the same time, Senator Tierney breathlessly invoked Australian cricketing achievement. He highlighted this in a media statement dated 28 February 1995. In that statement he posed the question: `What is the closest ever winning result in the history of test cricket?' He answers, `On the last West Indies tour of Australia, the Windies won in Adelaide by one run—the closest ever winning result in over 100 years of test cricket.' Then he delivers the punchline: `It could so easily happen again. But if it does, will we get to see it?' Well, it did happen. It happened this morning when the West Indies won a very close test cricket match. The television ratings for the Adelaide test that Senator Alston referred to were 42 per cent. This morning the ratings were zilch; zero; nothing at all; nought.

In 1995 it seemed that Senator Alston really cared about the cricket fans of Australia and was horrified at the prospect that they may be denied access to coverage of cricket. When we revisit the 1995 debates we discover that, while Senator Alston opened the bowling for the Liberal Party, there was no shortage of trundlers on that side of the chamber—the opposition benches—to follow him.

On 2 March 1995, Senator Tierney put a motion to the chamber which condemned the government's inaction on the matter of free-to-air telecasts of the West Indies cricket tour. In his speech, he insisted that the minister keep his promise that viewers would not be forced to pay to watch major sporting events. At the time, his conviction seemed sincere; where does it stand now? Has he approached the minister and railed against the evils of pay television and supported the rights of low income earners? Very unlikely. Has he delivered on behalf of Australia's cricketing public? No, of course he has not. His contribution in 1995 was clearly no more sincere than that of Senator Alston; his performance no less guilty of overacting.

Of course he is not alone in that. Senator Ferguson, on the same day, berated the then government for failing to intervene. The market, he told the Senate, had failed and it was the minister's responsibility to act quickly to ensure free-to-air coverage. Misty eyed, he pleaded across the chamber to us: `What about the low income earners in Australia?' Well, what about the low income earners in Australia? The same low income earners, because of the direct intervention of the then Labor government in 1995, were able to watch full, live and uninterrupted telecasts from the Caribbean. I invite Senator Ferguson to rise in the chamber today and explain to Australia's cricket fans why he no longer defends their right to free-to-air telecasts, as he so passionately did then. What exactly has changed? Why hasn't he been knocking on the door of the minister—demanding intervention, pleading the case for ordinary Australians on this issue? Are we simply to assume that, like Senators Tierney and Alston, Senator Ferguson was engaged in nothing more than political puffery of the most opportunistic kind?

Senator Crane described the issue as `an absolute tragedy for the education processes of young people in this country and their ability to see the very best'. I agree with Senator Crane. Of course it is crucial for the development of future sporting talent in the country that there is wide exposure of Australian sporting endeavour. It was partly in recognition of this that the Labor government did act in 1995 to deliver free-to-air coverage. So I ask Senator Crane: if it was important for the education of Australia's young just four years ago, what could possibly have changed in the meantime? Why hasn't he stood up in the Liberal Party room and made the point? Why hasn't he written to the minister? Can this senator point to one single act on his part to protect those young Australians he spoke of? Senator Crane joins his colleagues in a shameful line-up of inaction from the Liberal Party. The clamouring protesters of 1995 have been reduced to absolute silence in 1999.

The Liberal Party's criticism of the Labor government and Mr Lee in 1995 was over the antisiphoning list Labor had introduced to try to ensure free-to-air coverage of major sporting events. It was a sincere effort by the Labor government to respond to the policy challenges that were presented by the advent of pay television in this country. It was by no means a perfect formula, and we were aware at the time that changes may well need to be made. But let us look at the results. Despite the teething problems that were associated with the antisiphoning list, when the crunch came, Labor delivered. As a result of the proactive intervention of the then Labor minister, Mr Lee, every cricket fan in Australia had access to full, live and uninterrupted coverage of the 1995 test series.

Let us bring the clock forward four years from that time. Let us impose the same scrutiny on the current minister for communications in the Howard government. Today, under Senator Alston's stewardship, the Australian cricket follower has been almost totally shut out from the current tour of the West Indies unless they subscribe to Foxtel. Has the minister negotiated simulcast arrangements with free-to-air broadcasters, as was the case in 1995? No. Has the minister been able to ensure that an adequate highlights package is available to free-to-air broadcasters? No such luck.

We have some questions for Senator Alston. In the years since the minister so eloquently invoked our nation's love of cricket in the name of free-to-air coverage, what on earth has happened? Where has all the love gone from Senator Alston? Don't Australian cricket fans matter to Senator Alston anymore? When did Senator Alston stop caring about Australian cricket fans? If Senator Alston recalls any of his legal training, he must surely appreciate the notion of precedent. His words in 1995:

If Australian cricket fans are denied a free and direct telecast, the blame will rest squarely on Mr Lee's shoulders.

Mr Lee did not need to be told that. That is why it was Labor's minister for communications who successfully negotiated an arrangement whereby there was free-to-air coverage of the 1995 tour. Today, under the coalition government, Australian cricket fans are denied a free and direct telecast, and the blame rests squarely on the shoulders of the current communications minister, Senator Richard Alston.

Senator Alston's performance over the 1995 tour has been exposed for what it was: a cynical mix of feigned outrage and crocodile tears. His eyes were focused directly on the political main chance. He shamelessly tapped into a rich vein of affection for cricket in our community—the same affection that we have in this country for sport generally. This was not really about the rights of cricket fans, it was not really about the principle of free-to- air coverage of a national sporting event, and it certainly was not about his so-called concerns for low income earners who could not afford pay television. It was about scoring political points in the only sport that Senator Alston has ever cared about—political one-upmanship.

Senator Alston is the minister who told Mr Lee in 1995 that the buck stopped with Mr Lee. He said, `Stand up to the media heavyweights. Stand up for the little guy who loves his cricket and can't possibly afford to watch it.' As Senator Alston has shown so often in the past, his words speak so much louder than his actions. His fiery rhetoric in opposition is replaced by timid inaction in government, and the minister deserves no less than to be judged by his own standard. There is no free and direct telecast. He is the minister, it is his responsibility and he has failed that responsibility. The reason he has failed is that he is not really in charge of his portfolio at all. Every senator knows that the real minister for communications is the Prime Minister, Mr Howard.

We sympathise with Senator Alston because we know that his portfolio is often susceptible to prime ministerial interference, but I can remember no time when a minister has so placidly rolled over and accepted his role as a doormat with so little protest. Senator Alston might be the front man, he might have his face on the letterhead and on the departmental home page, but I have to say that that is about it. The Prime Minister knew that in Senator Alston he had the classic Clayton's minister—that there was no danger that the minister's intellectual rigour, work ethic and policy grasp would represent a threat in any way to the Prime Minister's total and complete domination over Senator Alston's portfolio.

It is not a matter of a minister being rolled. We all know that in any government ministers get rolled on policy matters from time to time. But we also know that in order to get rolled you have to be in there battling for something—taking a position, arguing a point. Senator Alston never does that. He picks up his ministerial salary cheque, no doubt enjoys his subsidised cabinet room banqueting and revels in his globetrotting. But he is an incompetent minister who has no control over the agenda in his department. He has treated Australian cricket followers with absolute contempt, and his Senate colleagues stand arm-in-arm with him as he presides over one of the shabbiest arrangements we have ever had for cricket coverage in modern cricket history. We say that this is insincerity in the extreme on the part of Senator Alston. It is total hypocrisy on a matter of vital importance to sport loving Australians. (Time expired)