$250m TV gift needs to be rechannelled

This week federal Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has been caught in a deluge of criticism from all quarters for his recent $250 million licence rebate to the commercial free-to-air broadcasters.

But while Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, with his accusations of bribes and nefarious dealings, likens the debacle to an episode of television's Underbelly, and the subscription TV industry knows there's Something in the Air and is asking the government to throw a little bit of Love My Way, it is the Australian taxpayers who are left in the dark as usual.

The whole basis on which the Rudd Government has provided this $250 million gift to an industry that continues to earn record profits is that the licence rebate "recognises the importance of the Australian content standard in ensuring TV audiences have strong levels of Australian programs". Essentially, the government argues that in these difficult digital times, the free-to-air networks need a helping hand to produce and screen Australian content.

But, of course, the $250 million is not tied to the free-to-air broadcasters actually doing anything extra to support the creation and delivery of Australian content.

There are no rules, no strings attached. We've been asked to simply take it on trust that this money will go to helping Australian viewers see Australian content.

When pushed on ABC News Radio, Conroy stated that the reason for this was that he was "not in a position to increase local content production".

"The US free trade agreement, which the previous government championed and supported and put into parliament, ensured that we can't increase the FTA local content rules," he said. "So we have to find ways to support Australia content and this is one of the ways."

While the Communications Minister is partly correct here, he does not provide the full picture.

The US free trade agreement did place a cap on the 55 per cent level of Australian content on the free-to-air broadcasters.

In fact, if we were to decrease it to, say, 50 per cent, we would not be able to increase it back to 55 per cent.

However, the minister has forgotten one important section of the US free trade agreement, the section that addresses the free-to-air multi-channels such as the Nine Network's Go! and Seven Network's 7Two.

This is rather surprising given his department, as we speak, is reviewing the application of local content rules to these additional channels.

There are no obligations on the free-to-airs to screen local content on their multi-channels.

The US free trade agreement, however, actually allows the additional application of local content rules on them within certain parameters; that is, the content standard can be applied to no more than two multi-channels.

But the commercial free-to-air broadcasters have been taking the mickey.

All the minister needs to do is sit down and switch his TV to Nine's multi-channel Go! to see that Australian programming is far from a priority.

In fact, it has been seen as more of an opportunity to pull out the back catalogue of old favourites such as I Dream of Jeannie, Bewitched and The Partridge Family.

The only Australian program to screen on Go! all year has been repeats of the somewhat ironically titled Wipeout Australia. This has led to a mere 3.2 per cent Australian content level on Go!.

Things are not much better on 7Two at 15.1 per cent (which at least screens our golden oldies, such as Sons and Daughters) and One HD 14.3 per cent (which is made up of a fair amount of Australian fishing programming and repeat AFL games).

Therefore this is one rather obvious way to ensure that the $250 million gift to the free-to-air networks will be directed towards the creation and broadcasting of Australian content.

The public spectrum has long been and will continue to be an incredibly valuable public resource both in terms of the commercial opportunities it enables and the social cohesion it promotes.

This is why local content obligations are placed on the free-to-air commercial broadcasters in the first place.

And it is clear that the federal government still sees the value in the public spectrum, despite the effect of digitisation.

Conroy is confident he will make up the loss of the $250 million in revenue in selling off the so-called digital dividend, the leftover spectrum we will have once we finally switch over from analogue to digital TV.

You'll also recall that the free-to-air broadcasters received the additional spectrum to screen these multi-channels at no additional cost, yet another gift to the free-to-airs that the subscription TV industry can add to its growing list of grievances (anti-siphoning, ABC3, ABC4).

If the Communications Minister's credibility is to stand up at all out of this mess, he must make moves to ensure that the $250 million gift to the networks will actually, verifiably, mean something.

In his now notorious press release, Conroy stated that the "government will protect Australian content on commercial television".

This will continue to ring hollow unless he can back his statement up by applying the Australian content standard to the multi-channels to the maximum extent allowed under the US free trade agreement.

If not, then not only will the Australian Taxation Office forever be poorer for it, Australian viewers will be, too.