Chapter 3Anti-siphoning scheme reforms
Introduction
3.1Schedule 2 of the Communications Legislation Amendment (Prominence and Anti-siphoning) Bill 2023 (the bill) seeks to introduce several reforms to the existing anti‑siphoning scheme.
3.2This chapter begins by providing background information on the anti-siphoning scheme and the proposed reforms. It then examines the key issues raised by submitters and concludes with the committee’s view and recommendation.
Background information
3.3The anti-siphoning scheme has been in place for almost 30 years. It aims to promote free access to televised coverage of nationally significant sporting events.[1]
3.4Under the scheme, subscription television broadcasting licensees are prevented from acquiring a right to televise an event on the anti-siphoning list until a free‑to-air (FTA) broadcaster has had an opportunity to acquire that right. Currently, events are automatically removed from the list six months prior to the commencement of the event, which then allows paid broadcast providers to acquire the rights.[2]
3.5In 2022, an Australian Government review of the scheme identified that, due to a risk of nationally important events migrating exclusively behind paywalled services, the scheme should be broadened to incorporate online services.[3]
3.6At present, the anti-siphoning scheme does not apply to:
subscription streaming services, such as Netflix and Amazon Prime Video;
dedicated sports streaming services, like Kayo Sports and Optus Sport;
broadcasting video on demand (BVOD) services, such as 9Now and 7plus; and
digital platforms, including Twitter and YouTube.[4]
3.7As a result, the proposed anti-siphoning reforms would:
expand the scheme to prevent online services from acquiring broadcasting rights to iconic events ahead of local FTA broadcasters within the listing period;[5]
enable the Minister to specify which events should be publicly available;[6]
add certain para and women’s sporting events to the anti-siphoning list;[7]
automatically delist events 12 months prior to their commencement (rather than sixmonths);[8]
provide the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) with powers to enforce the framework;[9] and
subject the scheme to a review five years after the reforms are operationalised.[10]
3.8The bill would increase the number of events regulated under the scheme by approximately 30 per cent (from around 1900 to around 2500 events). More than 500 of these additional events are part of the Summer Paralympics. The proposed additions include:
all events held as part of the Summer Paralympic Games;
the finals series matches of the AFLW Premiership;
the finals series matches of the NRLW Premiership;
the NRLW State of Origin Series; and
all Ashes series matches played in the United Kingdom (currently only Ashes test matches are included).
Support for anti-siphoning reforms
3.9On one hand, several submitters, including the ABC, SBS, and Free TV Australia, supported the expansion of the anti-siphoning scheme to include paid online platforms.[13]
3.10For example, the ABC argued that updating the anti-siphoning scheme for the contemporary media environment would close a loophole that:
…potentially allows major events to migrate behind online pay-walls operated by streaming services and other digital platforms that were not envisaged when the scheme was first created.
3.11 The ABC further argued that by ‘closing that loophole…the bill extends the principle of free and equitable access to coverage of iconic sporting events to the contemporary media environment’.[15]
3.12Similarly, SBS supported the extension of the scheme to paid streaming platforms,[16] while Free TV Australia submitted that the scheme:
requires expansion so as to ensure that Australians are not required to pay for a myriad of subscription video on demand and/or bundled telecommunications services in order to watch iconic sporting events.[17]
3.13Free TV Australia argued that:
free sport on television is a fundamental part of the Australian way of life…allowing Australians from all walks of life to share in the same moments together regardless of their economic circumstances or geographic location.[18]
3.14Mr James Warburton, Chief Executive Officer, Seven West Media, highlighted that free access to key sporting events can significantly increase participation in those sports:
Football Australia had put out some numbers on the back of the FIFA [Women’s] World Cup. They had a 669 per cent increase in club membership; they had 27,000 children register for a pass to go and watch the soccer versus 8,000 last year; and women's participation at grassroot levels increased from 20 to 26 per cent. So that's the piece around making these big cultural moments available…
3.15Additionally, Mr Warburton pointed out that BVOD sports consumption is rapidly increasing:
Sports streaming has increased 495 per cent across the board in terms of the BVOD market. People are choosing to watch sport on their phones on the go. Bathurst race, or the 500, is on this weekend—it's available on streaming services, I imagine people don't want to sit there for six or seven hours and actually watch it on a television.
Opposition to the anti-siphoning reforms
3.16On the other hand, several submitters, including the Coalition of Major Professional and Participation Sports (COMPPS), Foxtel, Netflix, and the Australian Subscription Television and Radio Association (ASTRA), opposed the anti-siphoning scheme reforms for various reasons, including that it impedes the ability of sporting codes to maximise revenue, and that the scheme is based on outdated viewing trends and is anti-competitive.[21] These concerns are explored below.
Constrains sporting codes’ ability to maximise revenue
3.17Organisations such as COMPPS, Foxtel and ASTRA raised concerns that the proposed new listings could constrain a sporting codes’ ability to maximise revenue from media rights.[22]
3.18COMPPS warned that sporting codes would be ‘significantly impacted’ by the bill,[23] arguing that the scheme ‘should be confined to its original purpose’ and only protect ‘events of national importance and cultural significance’.[24] COMPPS specifically urged caution around the inclusion of women’s events on the anti-siphoning list in case it had the opposite effect of inhibiting their growth and commercial success. COMPPS suggested first consulting with the relevant sport in advance of any decision to add an event to the list.[25]
3.19At the public hearing, COMPPS member, Netball Australia, echoed these concerns:
We are a code that is very dependent on the commercial revenue that comes in from our broadcasters. Our ability to decide or work with our broadcasters in terms of what needs to remain on free-to-air versus what remains on a paid television service is certainly critical for us…
3.20Fellow COMPPS members, the National Rugby League, gave similar evidence:
…from a rugby league point of view, the No. 1 revenue-generating thing for the sport is the broadcast rights revenue. It's roughly two-thirds of the revenue that comes into the game…we would absolutely support the view that there are elements of the rugby league competition that are nationally significant and iconic. One would think of the grand final, international matches and State of Origin, for both men's and women's leagues…As it currently stands, every rugby league premiership match is listed as nationally significant or iconic. That limits the ability of our game to monetise the rights, and the inability to monetise the rights curtails the ability to invest in all elements of sport—elite, participation, grassroots, the women's game et cetera. So it has a material impact, no question.
3.21Similarly, Foxtel argued that the revised list would disincentivise future investment in those sports as there would be less competition for rights from non-FTA content service providers. As a result, an expanded list would limit the investments those sports can make including in grassroots development and new competitions such as for women.[28]
3.22Likewise, ASTRA explained that:
sporting bodies with events that are newly added to the list are likely to receive less revenue overall for their broadcasting rights because there would be less competition for rights from non-FTA content service providers.[29]
3.23In a similar vein, Janez Media, cautioned against extending the list to multiple women’s sports and para sports events as it could impede growth in the audiovisual coverage of these sports and have serious medium-term ramifications by stifling investment.[30]
Departmental response to concerns regarding revenue
3.24While the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts (the department) did not provide a submission to the committee’s inquiry, the bill’s Impact Analysis (IA) addressed many of the concerns raised by submitters.
3.25For example, the IA advised that the review of the anti-siphoning scheme occurred in two parts in 2022 and 2023 and involved consultation with subscription television broadcasters and streaming services and sporting bodies.
3.26The IA acknowledged the potential for the scheme to impair the ability of sporting bodies to maximise their revenue, advising that the Government ‘sought to assess and mitigate this risk through two phases of consultation’ which ‘informed the evaluation of options and the identification of the preferred approach’.
The scheme is based on outdated viewing trends
3.27COMPPS, Foxtel and ASTRA also raised concerns that the scheme is based on outdated viewing trends.[33]
3.28COMPPS submitted that the reforms do not ‘give appropriate weight’ to changing consumer behaviour but instead entrench a scheme ‘which is predicated upon an outdated model of Australians in their loungerooms consuming content via terrestrial television’.[34]
3.29Likewise, Foxtel argued that bill ‘is contradictory to modern technology and viewing trends’ where ‘Australians are more likely to have watched content on a SVOD [streaming video on demand] service in the past week than via live FTA television’.[35] Similarly, ASTRA argued that the scheme ‘does not take into account the current viewing habits of Australians and emerging trends in technology’.[36]
3.30Foxtel suggested that a better outcome for Australian consumers would be to reform the scheme in line with Model 1 proposed by the Department during consultations in August 2023,[37] as it would:
ensure that more Australians are able to enjoy live and full coverage of listed events for free by imposing a coverage obligation on the first acquirers of rights capable of showing a listed event live and in full.[38]
3.31ASTRA noted that the Government’s justification for discarding proposed Model 1 was that ‘online services capable of streaming sports, in the near‑to‑medium-term, are not likely to be accessible to…all Australians, regardless of their financial means, location or other factors’.[39] However, ASTRA pointed out that 99.3 per cent of premises could connect to the NBN and 99.4percent could connect to Telstra’s 4G service. By contrast, ASTRA noted that ‘the bill carves out commercial television broadcasting licensees whose services cover only 50per cent or more of the population’.[40] Furthermore, ASTRA submitted that ‘uptake of internet services is strong’, ‘the use of the internet to consume content already exceeds live FTA television’, and ‘the affordability of internet services is strong across Australia’.[41]
3.32Similarly, both Netball Australia and the National Rugby League argued that it is more important for content to reach the largest audience possible and therefore made freely available via any platform rather than restricting availability to an FTA service.
3.33For example, Executive General Manager of the National Rugby League, Mr Misha Zelinsky, argued:
…if the intent of the government, a regulation or a scheme is to make sure that you have access to what we would say are the critically iconic and nationally significant events…and to make sure that they're free, free-to-air television is not the only way that you can do that. There are other ways to get free content to people…We should be technologically neutral. If the intent is for people to be able to see it free, we think that's a great outcome. It doesn't necessarily need to be free-to-air television…A free-to-view model, aligned with an NBN, would be a way to ensure that you have as much access as possible.
3.34This sentiment was echoed by Netball Australia:
From a netball-specific point of view, free-to-view certainly allows us a lot more flexibility in being able to provide the prime-time and ideal time slots that we are afforded with our current broadcast partner.
When we think about free-to-air television networks, we know that there are other competing products, codes and TV shows for audiences. When sports such as netball don't meet that same audience level, they are not necessarily treated the same way on their free-to-air networks, or in the same time slots either, when we know that there are a maximum number of people viewing. The free-to-view model certainly opens up the opportunity to promote netball at a prime-time level to the largest number of Australians…
3.35Foxtel gave similar evidence, arguing for ‘events of national importance, like the Bathurst 1000 or the NRL and AFL grand finals, [to be] made available live, free and on a national basis, no matter what the platform’.
3.36At the hearing, inquiry participants also discussed whether the regulation should require FTA services to reach a greater portion of the population. For example, Foxtel argued that ‘90 per cent of Australians get access to broadband…One thing you should change…is that the free-to-air broadcaster must reach 100 per cent of the population, because at the moment the test is 50per cent’.
Departmental response to concerns regarding viewing trends
3.37As outlined above, while the department did not provide a submission to the inquiry, the IA addressed concerns that the scheme is based on outdated viewing trends. The IA acknowledged that ‘audiences are migrating from traditional broadcasts to online services’, thus exposing the need for the reforms to capture online services.
3.38The IA also addressed Foxtel’s preference for Model 1:
For consumers, the free-to-view model would provide surety of free, live and in-full coverage (noting…[some] indirect costs…However, this model can only achieve this aim via a significant reduction in the list. This is because live and in full coverage of every event on the current list is unlikely to be technically or financially feasible. For example, the Australian Open alone contains over 600 events, many of which occur concurrently (particularly in the early stages of the tournament). The reduction to the list required for this model would, in turn, potentially impact the ability of Australians to view events of national importance and cultural significance that they are accustomed to viewing for free…This model is expected to be relatively complicated to implement and administer.
The scheme is anti-competitive
3.39Some submitters, including ASTRA, Netflix, and Foxtel, expressed concern that the reformed scheme would be anti-competitive.[49]
3.40ASTRA argued that extending the scheme to benefit FTA BVOD services would give FTAs ‘an unfair competitive advantage’, by distorting the playing field ‘in favour of FTA at the expense of the [streaming television] industry’. ASTRA further argued that an extension would entrench ‘the unfair competitive advantage of FTAs to acquire broadcasting rights’ as well as streaming rights as ‘it is common for sporting bodies to bundle their broadcast rights and streaming rights together’.[50] ASTRA noted Productivity Commission (PC) reports from 2000 and 2009 which had identified that the anti-siphoning scheme was anti‑competitive.[51]
3.41Similarly, Netflix argued that the scheme does not enable a level playing field or provide equitable access as it ‘benefits local broadcasters at the expense of competition’.[52]
3.42On a similar note, Foxtel argued that the reforms do not ‘advance the objective of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992’ to ‘facilitate the development of a broadcasting industry in Australia that is efficient, competitive, and responsive to audience and user needs’ and therefore the bill ‘exacerbates the anti‑competitive nature of the scheme’.[53]
Departmental response to competition concerns
3.43In relation to concerns that the PC had found the scheme to be anti-competitive, the IA noted that it is ‘very difficult and, in many cases, impossible to quantify’ the impacts of the scheme, and that the PC had not ‘attempted to quantify these impacts on businesses’. Additionally, the IA stated that financial information is generally confidential and that ’even where figures may be known, it is…not possible to quantify what may be paid in the future based on previous deals’.
3.44Furthermore, the IA stated that, while anti-siphoning regulation ‘restricts the sequence and timing of the acquisition of sports rights’, it ‘does not prohibit the acquisition of such rights’.
Scope of the anti-siphoning scheme
3.45This section canvasses key arguments regarding the scope of the scheme, including whether it should be broadened to include digital rights, expanded to include more events, and whether FTA broadcasters should be required to broadcast events freely and in full.
Should digital rights be covered by the scheme?
3.46The inquiry received conflicting evidence on whether digital rights to events should be bundled with aerial rights.
3.47Free TV Australia was concerned that Australians are increasingly accessing free television services over the internet and that many people, especially in new housing, do not have aerials connected. Yet despite this, the modernised anti‑siphoning scheme would require FTA television broadcasters to only be offered the over‐the‐air, aerial‐delivered broadcast rights to events on the list.[56]
3.48Some stakeholders, including Free TV Australia and SBS, argued that FTA services should be provided with the opportunity to acquire both aerial and digital rights to events before subscription services.[57]
3.49Mr James Warburton, Chief Executive Officer, Seven West Media, gave similar evidence, pointing out that many Australians will soon not have aerials connected in their homes:
…we're getting into a market…where 50 per cent of Australia will not have an aerial in the back of their television. Antisiphoning has served us well in terms of Australians having the right to see the vast majority and certainly the biggest sport for free. If we don't include the digital piece—the BVOD right—then people will not see sport full stop…
3.50Ms Bridget Fair, the Chief Executive Officer of Free TV Australia, argued that the bill should not discriminate between viewers consuming sport via aerial and internet connection:
…from a viewer's point of view, the experience of watching a live television service, whether over the internet or through a terrestrial broadcast aerial, is largely the same. At this point in time, we shouldn't be distinguishing between those two types of services in how we regulate them. In the case of antisiphoning, we shouldn't be saying, 'People who have a stick on their house can watch free sport, and people who don't can't.' That's what this legislation does.
3.51Mr Gregory Hywood, the Chairman of Free TV Australia, argued that amending the bill in this regard is vital ‘so that sport remains free for the increasing number of Australians who rely on the internet for television’.
3.52In a similar vein, SBS argued that broadening the scheme to cover online rights would ensure that ‘the scheme appropriately reflects contemporary content consumption patterns, and…maximise[s] audiences' access to reliable, free and ubiquitous coverage of listed events’, as well as avoid ‘the need for regulation to be revisited in the near future’.[61]
3.53Oppositely, Foxtel told the committee that, in practice, FTA services already have the opportunity to acquire digital rights at the time they are acquiring the aerial rights:
In relation to whether you should bundle broadcast and digital rights…the privilege that free-to-air already has in terms of being able to be first at the table and acquire all of the rights on the list, which are extraordinarily extensive, means that they really will not miss out on any digital rights. It's only happened once or twice, and that was the choice of the free-to-air in cricket and in the last cycle of the AFL, where they didn't want to pay for the rights...By and large, the rights have travelled because of the power they have with the current legislative privilege.
3.54However, Free TV Australia countered that historical acquisitions are not necessarily reflective of the future arrangements, and that local FTA services should be protected from the practices of large overseas streaming companies:
The fact that broadcasters have been able to apply BVOD rights in various instances up until now shouldn't be taken as indicative that this is what's going to always happen into the future, because we know that these big streaming companies are coming in and aiming for our sports. They're doing it overseas and they're going to do it here, because they're moving into an advertiser model. We are going to see, increasingly, these digital rights being acquired exclusively, just as with the Amazon cricket deal last September. That's what's going to happen, and broadcasters will be left being offered rights to show to currently 80 per cent, next year 70 per cent and the year after that 50 per cent of your audience. We won't be able to afford to pick up those rights, and the people who will miss out are the Australian public.
Should the list of events be expanded to include more events?
3.55Some stakeholders argued that the proposed list of events should be expanded to capture additional key sporting events that are of importance to Australians.[64]
3.56For example, the ABC argued for significantly increasing the number of listed events. The ABC submitted that an expanded list ‘would offer women's sport appropriate recognition and deliver greater public benefit than the "modernised list" that the Government is proposing to adopt’. Specifically, the ABC suggested including every match of the Netball World Cup (senior Australian representative team), the Super Netball series, the Winter Paralympic Games, the Women's Big Bash League, the Women's National Cricket League, and the A-League Women.[65]
3.57Similarly, SBS suggested including the Tour de France, the Tour de France Femmes, and full FIFA World Cup finals tournaments (men’s and women’s).[66]
3.58Likewise, Free TV Australia suggested that the World Cup Cricket should be reinstated rather than limiting matches to only those played in Australia and New Zealand.[67]
3.59As mentioned, other submitters were concerned that expansion of the list could stifle investment in those sports. For example, ASTRA submitted that ‘FTAs would essentially become the gatekeepers of the single most important source of revenue for sporting organisations, being the revenue derived from the sale of media rights’.[68]
Should the scheme require that listed events are available for free and in full?
3.60Foxtel, Netflix, and ASTRA expressed concerns that the bill would not impose an obligation on FTA broadcasters to ensure that listed events were available freely and in full to the public.[69]
3.61Foxtel highlighted that the bill does not protect:
against a commercial television broadcasting licensee acquiring the broadcasting and streaming rights to a listed event, then transferring the streaming rights to a subscription platform owned and operated by separate, but related, corporate entity.[70]
3.62Foxtel added:
…in the case of Nine and Ten, when they acquire the rights, there is no obligation to actually broadcast the rights. They can put it on their pay companies, which are Paramount Plus and Stan. It's a very dangerous situation, especially if you mandate that the rights for broadcast, as well as the rights for digital, have to be acquired before anyone else.
3.63To address this, ASTRA and Netflix suggested amending the bill to ensure that any service that receives the anti-siphoning regulatory protection would be obliged to ensure access is provided for free, live, and in full.[72]
Should the automatic delisting period be extended or removed entirely?
3.64Some submitters argued for further extending the anti-siphoning delisting period to allow sporting codes more time to sell their media rights to paid platforms in the event that they are not acquired by FTA services.
3.65For example, COMPPS argued that the automatic delisting period should be extended to 24 months to allow Australian sporting bodies reasonable time to sell content elsewhere.[73]
3.66Mr Spencer Retallack, Executive General Manager, Media, Netball Australia, echoed this argument:
We are coming into an extremely important period: we're hosting the 2027 World Cup in Australia and looking forward to bringing that to Sydney and New South Wales. As part of that, the gold medal match and the third- and fourth-place match will also be on the antisiphoning list, and we need to ensure that we can exploit that to its fullest extent. Extending the delisting period to [24 months] would be our preferred opportunity, and we believe that that would provide us with the most amount of time to ensure that we can negotiate a sale with other broadcasters.
3.67Likewise, Optus argued for extending the delisting period to 15–18 months in advance of an event to ‘ensure there is sufficient lead time to enable high-quality delivery of events not acquired by national/commercial broadcasters’.[75]
3.68Conversely, some submitters argued that the delisting period should not be extended past the current six months. For example, FreeTV Australia cautioned that expanding the delisting period ‘carries a real risk that events will drop off the list before they are able to be acquired’ as many events are not acquired more than 12 months in advance such as the 2024 Melbourne Cup for which negotiations are still ongoing as at January 2024.[76] Likewise, SBS argued that proposed extension of the automatic delisting period from six to 12 months ‘is unwarranted and unworkable’ and should be removed from the bill.[77]
3.69Officials from the department explained the rationale behind the proposed expansion:
The current anti-siphoning scheme provides for events to be delisted six months before they occur. That's designed to provide the opportunity for parties that are otherwise prohibited from acquiring the rights to do so if a free-to-air broadcaster doesn't want to. The bill proposes extending that from six months to 12 months to better reflect the commercial reality of where—and the timing for rights negotiations and agreements being struck. Most rights negotiations or most rights agreements struck over the last decade tend to be in that one- to two-year period before the first event in the particular competition or series of events takes place. So one to two years is normal. The intent with this change is to better align the ability of those parties that are otherwise restricted under the scheme from acquiring rights to acquire those rights in a manner that accords with the way that commercial deals tend to be struck.
Inclusion of game consoles
3.70The Interactive Games & Entertainment Association (IGEA) expressed concern around the inclusion of 'interactive computer game service' in the scheme. Mr Ron Curry, Chief Executive Officer, IGEA, told the committee:
…we think this is an error in the legislative drafting, as we really can't figure out a scenario in which the scheme would apply in practice to the video game industry broadly and video game consoles specifically...we'd like to recommend…that videogame consoles and services more broadly be excluded from the antisiphoning scheme by deleting the reference to an interactive computer games service from the bill and/or the EM.
3.71In response to questioning from the committee, officials from the department clarified why game consoles had been included in the bill:
The proposed reforms to the anti-siphoning scheme look to extend the current scheme to online services. So they provide that any media content service—and that can include a streaming service or, essentially, anyone who provides a media content service of any shape or form—is prohibited from acquiring the rights to events on the list until a free-to-air broadcaster has acquired a right to televise the event on a broadcasting service.
Committee view and recommendation
3.72The anti-siphoning scheme continues to play a vital role in ensuring that significant sporting and cultural events are freely available to the Australian public.
3.73The committee acknowledges support received from a range of submitters for the reforms. The committee agrees that the proposed reforms are necessary to close loopholes which have emerged due to evolving content consumption trends and technologies.
3.74The committee heard concerns that an overly expansive list of events will have material implications for sporting codes. The committee recognises that the proposed anti-siphoning reforms may have some impact on certain codes but is of the view that the bill strikes the right balance between the public good and commercialisation interests. The committees notes that while the proposed reforms would add some rapidly rising events to the list, such as certain women’s sporting fixtures, it also doubles the amount of time for paid platforms to bid for these events.
3.75The committee acknowledges concerns of free-to-air broadcasters that the scheme should be extended to prevent the acquisition of any right until a free‑to‑air broadcaster has both a broadcast and a BVOD right. The committee notes this would confer a substantial competitive advantage to free-to-air broadcasters—beyond the already significant extension of the anti-siphoning scheme to online media in the bill—and significantly impede the ability of sporting bodies to negotiate their rights and the ability of subscription broadcasters and streaming services to compete for those rights. Evidence of recent rights deals highlights that where a free-to-air broadcaster has acquired a broadcast right, they have also successfully secured online rights for their BVOD service, in many instances.
3.76The committee notes evidence that there are some new residential premises being built without antennas, but also that the proposed reforms to the scheme will not preclude free-to-air broadcasters from acquiring online media rights to iconic sporting events. In fact, these reforms will support the ability of free-to‑air broadcasters to acquire these rights by preventing all other media entities, including streaming services, from acquiring a right to an event on the anti‑siphoning list until a free-to-air broadcaster has the broadcast right. The committee notes that overall, the proposed reforms to the scheme enhance the opportunity for free-to-air broadcasters to acquire rights ahead of anyone else, which supports the objective of the scheme.
3.77The committee is further assured by evidence that the department consulted extensively with stakeholders on a range of models and options and that the proposed approach was chosen to balance the public interest benefits of the policy with the expected limitations on industry.
3.78To balance these limitations, the Australian Government should provide additional support for emerging sporting codes, such as women’s and para sports, which may experience some impact as a result of the proposed reforms.
3.79Further, the committee notes the greater opportunities for paid service providers that will flow from the increased delisting period, allowing those organisations to seek to acquire media rights for double the current duration. Meanwhile, the Minister for Communications will continue to have the ability to retain an event on the list if a national or commercial broadcaster has not had a reasonable opportunity to acquire the relevant rights, as is the case under the current scheme. In the committee’s view, the propose anti-siphoning reforms strike the right balance between FTA and subscription services.
3.80The committee recommends that the anti-siphoning provisions of the bill be passed.
Senator Karen Grogan
Chair