Senator ROBERT RAY (4:39 PM) —When this matter was in this chamber four years ago, Senator Ian Campbell did not complain then that it had been raised, and all 30 votes from the coalition that were used to carry that motion four years ago are still here in the coalition benches. But under the metamorphosis that we have seen they have all become mute. Political amnesia has settled on that side opposite. Who was the big mouth of 1995? It was not Senator Tierney—he may have been sincere about it—it was Senator Alston, and where is he today? He has sent the nightwatchman into bat for him. Now he has the bunny waiting to come into the order while he hides in the pavilion of the ministerial office. He does not want any Labor speakers to follow him and criticise him, because only yesterday, at question time, he said people do not front up. Where is he today? Surely he has not become the modern day jib of the Senate. Senator Alston made a lot of big statements back in 1995.

The absolute indolence of this minister is just breathtaking to me. His pompous assertions will come back to haunt him. In 1995 he demanded that the Labor minister for communications intervene, no excuses accepted. It did not matter what the law said or what any of the proprietors said; it was Michael Lee's responsibility—and Michael Lee intervened and we all got to see the cricket. We all got to see it live; we got to see it absolutely direct. But the fact is that Senator Alston carries no weight with the networks, media proprietors or the ABC. If they want action, they go directly to the Prime Minister in the full knowledge that Senator Alston will roll over on any demands they put to the Prime Minister. It is a pity that Senator Alston cannot use his well-known skills of abuse, sarcasm and hyperbole for the good of cricket fans rather than just to bolster his fragile ego in this particular chamber. Surely the skills he learned as the bovver boy of the magistrates court could be put into trying to convince the networks to bring cricket into this country.

Senator Bourne said this is not an important issue. The ABC and all these things are there for everyone, not just for the buffs of this and that. I remind you, Senator Bourne, the highest rating television show between 6.00 and 6.30 was the Adelaide Test—Channel 9 cancelled the news that night—with 42½ per cent ratings. The ABC would just dream about those sorts of ratings. They are the same sorts of ratings an AFL grand final gets. So it is an important issue.

Senator Bourne mentioned the ABC. The ABC has consistently given preference to its breakfast programs rather than the cricket—3½ hours were lost one day, and I am listening to some drivel about fishing or something else. I accept that those breakfast shows, for their long-term rating viability, may not need to be interrupted, so why don't we take it to the parliamentary network and put it on there, like they do with the AFL football? Then we could all listen to it. But to listen to the Canberra breakfast show saying, `Australia is three for 80' a day ago—when the West Indies were batting—drives one to absolute distraction.

Why won't the coalition come out on this thing? Why won't coalition backbenchers put pressure on in the party room or on the minister? Why are they so docile on these issues? It all goes back to the coalition's patronage system. They are terrified. They are too terrified to say anything. I have never seen a better form of democratic centralism than that which exists in the coalition, where decisions are made at the top and all the control goes down. This is the Ceaucescu syndrome! In the coalition party room, when the Prime Minister is applauded don't be the first person to stop clapping. Never do that! Just keep the rounds of applause going, otherwise you will never get promoted. So we have a whole bunch of wimps opposite—cricket fanatics all, genuine cricket fanatics on that side; I have spoken to many of them but I will not name them; they love their cricket—but they do not have the internal fortitude, the courage, to get up and demand what they demanded four years ago.

We have often been accused of playing the politics of envy, but I will tell you who is envious at the moment, and that is those people who are not getting the direct coverage. The Prime Minister of Australia was asked the shortest question ever in question time in the House of Representatives today. He was asked: `Prime Minister, is Foxtel connected to Kirribilli House?' The Prime Minister answered, `Yes.' Then he sat down and said, `So what?' I will tell you so what, Mr Howard. Next Saturday morning when you get up and put on your slippers, and you have your honey and crumpets and your cup of tea, and you are watching the direct telecast from Antigua, most of the battlers that you purport to represent out in Penrith, Bayswater and Ipswich will be struggling to try to find a radio broadcast because they have gone over to some crackpot fishing show or some handyman program, and there is no cricket at all.

Mr Howard will be sitting in the comfort of Kirribilli House thinking—not about the peasants and the piccaninnies out there—`Gee, this coverage is terrific.' But he will be doing nothing to help his fellow Australians to watch it. That is the real politics of envy. That is using your position of wealth and power to get a more privileged position in society than the rest of the Australian community, and that is to be condemned. It is one of the reasons why I fought so often in cabinet about what I saw as the future iniquities of pay television—that in fact it would create two classes of viewers in this country. I regret some of the decisions made then, but I note that this government has brought forward no legislation to change any of the rules that were established then.

We have a situation where there is no free-to-air coverage, not even a highlights package. We have an ABC coverage that sometimes cuts out 3½ hours before play ends.

Senator Faulkner —It cuts out at 1.18 a.m.

Senator ROBERT RAY —And the transmission, as Senator Faulkner says, when we are listening at 1.18 a.m. suddenly cuts out for half an hour or so. This is absolutely pathetic. If this had just occurred in a vacuum, we still would have been critical of the government but it occurs against a background where senators Tierney, Ferguson, Crane and Alston made such a fuss about it in 1995 and demanded that we do something about it. Well, they did demand, and we did deliver. We now demand: you deliver. Otherwise, I think we should all move to Kirribilli next weekend. Where is the invitation, Mr Howard? Get the crumpets and the tea ready. We would like to watch the cricket. This is not a personal or a selfish point of view. We would like all Australians to have the opportunity to watch the cricket from Antigua next week, but this government will not do so. Senator Alston could not deliver a pizza. That is the reality of it.

Let me end on a positive note. One good thing has come out of the coverage of the West Indies tour, and it has occurred in this test match alone. For the first time, I have heard a female doing the cricket broadcast, and that is Donna Simmons. I have rarely heard a better commentator of cricket than Donna. She is lucid, entertaining and accurate. Most people know that the great art in listening to cricket is to be able to visualise the game in your head. She has been absolutely superb. I think that is something that should be encouraged into the future.

Congratulations are due to the West Indian broadcasters that have used her and the fact that the ABC has picked up the broadcast. Donna Simmons has given much to cricket lovers in this country. What a pity we cannot listen to the radio and watch television at the same time. We cannot do it because this government has failed miserably to deliver. So enjoy your weekend, John Howard. Enjoy watching the test cricket from Antigua. We all know that you really could not care less about all of the poor battlers out there who will have no opportunity to join in and enjoy what will be one of the greatest cricket telecasts in history.