In a week when we’ve been told the nation’s accounts have at $10.5 billion deficit and ACC is sinking under its own weight, people are wasting time and energy arguing about who should screen rugby matches.
And in all the reports on all the arguments has anyone given satisfactory answers to these questions:
* Why is access to free-to-air sports on television a right?
* Why is it acceptable to pay to attend a game but not to watch it on television?
* How many people who want to watch the Rugby World Cup on television don’t have reasonable access to pay TV?
* Would it be cheaper to pay for these people to get pay TV for the duration of the RWC or pay for a taxi to take them to a pub where they could watch the match for free than it is to provide free-to-air coverage?
If that sounds like a silly question answer this:
* Is watching free-to-air sport a higher priority than health care?
That might sound like a silly question too. But when we’re borrowing enough to build a new hospital each week to maintain what the government provides now, it’s a very sensible question which leads on to another:
Why are taxpayers supporting anything that could be considered a luxury when we’re borrowing to fund necessities?
What really matters – the things a few people want or what most people need?