Senator ALSTON (Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (4:59 PM) —The only reason I have come into the chamber is to highlight the total ignorance of the Leader of the Opposition on this issue. Although I have not had a chance to hear what Senators Ray and Faulkner might have had to say, I doubt that they are much more enlightened than their current leader. For example, on the Neil Mitchell program recently on 3AW, Mr Beazley said:

When we put in place the anti-siphoning laws our anticipation was that for Tests like this you would get a sufficient ability for the Minister to basically oblige its carriage of on free-to-air television.

When there was a discussion in the parliament in 1994 about what is called the anti-hoarding approach, Labor was bemoaning the fact that carriers could acquire rights and then not utilise them. Indeed, you may remember that Michael Lee went and threatened Channel 10 with an investigation under control laws unless they agreed to carry the West Indies television: in other words, he blackmailed them—

Senator Bolkus —You are a doormat for anybody.

Senator ALSTON —Vermin like you do not have a right to comment—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McKiernan) —Order, Minister! I ask the minister to withdraw that comment.

Senator ALSTON —I will withdraw it.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Thank you, Minister. Senator Bolkus, that does not help.

Senator ALSTON —The fact is that in 1994 what Mr Lee had to say was this:

No-one should be surprised by this list—

the antisiphoning list—

because as far back as 1991 the then Minister for Transport and Communications, Mr Beazley, made the following statement: `Strict siphoning rules would ensure that important programs, including national and international sporting and cultural events, will continue to be available on free-to-air.'

In other words, the current anti-siphoning rules were put in place by none other than the Leader of the Opposition, who now has no idea what they were, because he said:

Now something seems to have slipped on the way to the Forum, and this is now the average Australian cricket lover has been basically, is being deprived . . .

In other words, Mr Beazley thinks at all times the minister had the power to direct, which is of course elevating him to being minister for propaganda.

It is an appalling proposition. In other words, it is forcing commercial networks to broadcast material which they judge not to be commercially affordable and which may indeed not be attracting any significant degree of support in the wider community, simply because the minister himself wants to see it or else because he gets a few private representations. That is the ultimate in intervention in the marketplace.

If the Labor Party seriously advances that proposition, we have a huge policy divide between us. You get up and complain whenever anyone says anything about the ABC; you say that it is illegal to intervene and how preposterous it is that we might even comment on programming, let alone make suggestions about it. Then, in the same breath, you have the Leader of the Opposition saying that the anti-siphoning laws were designed to give the minister the ability to basically oblige programs to be broadcast on free-to-air television.

The ignorance of the Leader of the Opposition, the then minister who introduced this regime, is breathtaking. Does he believe that, or doesn't he? If he doesn't, he ought to apologise, recant and say that Labor policy is still as it was when these rules were introduced. Or, if he has made a fundamental policy change which you all support him on, then there is, as I say, a huge policy gulf between us. We are in favour of the current antisiphoning rules which require programs on the list to be firstly offered to the free-to-air networks. If they choose not to take up the offer, the material can then be made available to pay television and, indeed, can be delisted.

Senator Bolkus —What a pathetic performance. You are pathetic!

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Please continue, Minister.

Senator ALSTON —Oh! I thought you were appalled by Senator Bolkus's contribution—the usual sledging out of the side of the mouth. But nothing would surprise me about Senator Bolkus: they do not come any lower than him.

Senator Bolkus —I raise a point of order. I did not say anything out of the side of my mouth. I said to Senator Alston that this is a most pathetic performance from a pathetic minister. There is no heart and no defence for himself at all. I resent the fact that he says that I slipped it out of the side of my mouth. It was full frontal.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order.

Senator ALSTON —It is rather tragic that the case that has been made here is that the Leader of the Opposition simply does not know what laws he put in place back in 1991, or else he has made a fundamental policy change. Senator Bolkus does not even seem to want to address that issue, because there is no answer to it. Either the Leader of the Opposition says that he fundamentally misunderstands the current legislation or he is foreshadowing that the Labor Party, when in government, would give themselves the power to direct the commercial networks to run programs that the minister thought they should run. That is what he says. He says, `We thought that you would basically get a sufficient ability for the minister to oblige carriage on free-to-air television.' That is a huge call. I would be very surprised if Senator Bishop thought that that was the way to go, and I would be very surprised if the shadow minister thinks that is the way to go. There is a big opportunity here for them to spell out whether they now support this fundamental change of policy or whether the reality is that poor old Mr Beazley did not know what he was talking about.

The fact is—and I do not know whether others have covered this ground—that all free-to-air broadcasters were given a reasonable opportunity to acquire live rights to televise the current test cricket series between Australia and the West Indies. In other words, we did precisely what your legislation required. The rights were offered to the broadcasters at the cost incurred by News Limited in acquiring those rights. The broadcasters declined the offer and the offer of a highlights package.

We are of course disappointed—and I am particularly, as a cricket lover—but the fact is that there are something like 700,000 subscribers to Foxtel and Austar who can receive live coverage as a result of the decision that we took to delist the event. In other words, we did not condone what Labor used to condone—the hoarding and non-utilisation of the rights. There have been a number of instances when it has become clear that the free-to-air networks were not going to carry it. They were offered it and they refused. We have then moved very quickly and in sufficient time ahead of the event to delist it and enable pay television to run it without it being simultaneously covered on free-to-air.

That is the sort of outcome you envisaged with your legislation. It was never suggested back in 1991 that there should be a ministerial power of intervention. If that is your current position, if you have fundamentally changed your policy, simply clarify it for us and we will know where the battle lines are drawn.