Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. Has the minister mentioned the value of television licence fees, the rebate of such fees or the review of such fees in any discussions with free-to-air television networks or their representatives about the future of the antisiphoning list?

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

I thank the author of at least 14 of the 19 failed broadband plans for finally having a question and joining in the debate in the Senate. Only 14 are her fault, to be fair.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Conroy, address the question.

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on a point of order: My question relates to the antisiphoning scheme, not to broadband. I ask the President to require the minister to be directly relevant.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Your point of order is quite correct. Senator Conroy, you have heard the question; you need to address the question.

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

I accept your admonishment, Mr President. I will be directly relevant to the question. The source of this question is an inaccurate report in the Age newspaper. While I admit it is not the paper of choice for those opposite, it is unfortunately not an accurate representation of any discussions that took place. There have been some very lively discussions around the issues of the antisiphoning list. There have been claims from one group, claims from another group and claims from the sporting associations. Some of that has been ventilated recently in the newspapers. But to try to quote and claim that a report in one newspaper is an accurate depiction probably does not stand up to scrutiny when, clearly, what is going on in this debate is that some players in this debate have been trying to influence the outcome by going to the newspapers. I am not going to have a discussion about private discussions. If other people choose to go to newspapers and put misreports in them that they think help their case then so be it; they are welcome to. But I will not be drawn into a discussion about private discussions around sensitive issues in the public sphere. I will continue to maintain a dignified approach by not describing what goes on it private meetings.

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I was wondering whether, in the lively discussions the minister referred to on this important matter of public interest, the minister can guarantee to the Senate that he has never suggested or implied that decisions on the value of television licence fees or rebates of such fees will be influenced in any way by how the free-to-air networks publicly respond to any changes to the antisiphoning list.

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

I can guarantee that, unlike in the times when Senator Coonan was minister for communications, there is not a situation where a TV mogul picks up the phone and says, ‘This is what the policy’s going to be.’ We are driven by what is in the best interests of the public. We are interested in protecting Australian content and guaranteeing that Australian voices are going to continue to be heard in this ever-increasing diversity of media—from the internet, from newspapers, from radio and from the television sector. We are going to continue to develop policy in the best interests of the Australian public, and we are not going to be intimidated as were those opposite, who said, ‘Okay, we’ll start digital broadcasting in the year 2000, and by the time we get to, maybe, 2013 we might have a switch-off date for analog TV—13 years late.’ (Time expired)

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question, because Senator Conroy seemed to be trailing off there a bit. Given that the minister has pointedly failed to guarantee that he has not suggested or implied to free-to-air networks that the value of their licence fees could be impacted by how they publicly respond to changes to the antisiphoning list, does the minister truly believe it is justifiable to use threats that could cost networks millions of dollars to try to silence criticism of his decisions? Doesn’t this just amount to a form of blackmail? (Time expired)

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

It is quite open to others to accuse a minister of the Crown of blackmail, but the former minister over there used to cower at the ring of a phone in case it was a mogul, and she managed to say from the year 2000 to the year 2013: ‘We might switch off; we just might switch off. Oh, my goodness; some of those TV moguls don’t want us to switch off, so we’d better just have a target. We’ll have a target.’

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You know all about moguls, Stephen, don’t you? You go skiing with them.

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Once again, it is on relevance. The minister must be made to be relevant to the supplementary question. He is now going off into switching off the analog signal and other timetables. We are talking about antisiphoning, just to remind him—antisiphoning and nothing else. I would ask you, Mr President, to require him to be relevant instead of raving.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: senators, I think, have to come to these debates with clean hands. If a senator accuses a minister of being involved in blackmail in her question, I do not think that she can then demand that the minister be relevant to the other part of her question, where she deliberately seeks to incite and, quite frankly, makes an accusation that I think ought to be withdrawn.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy, you have 37 seconds remaining to address the question.

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

As I was saying, those opposite had 11½ years to prove that they would operate the communications portfolio in the national interest, not in the interests of any individual proprietor. But, every single time they tried a bit of reform, they were blocked—no multichannels and no dates of switch-off to actually force new content. None of that happened, because those opposite cowered when the phone rang: ‘It might be this mogul or that mogul.’ As a boarder, Senator Bernardi, I avoid moguls when I am on the slopes. So let me be clear. (Time expired)

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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