Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I had occasion in 2000 to speak on relevant legislation: the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Digital Television and Datacasting) Bill 2000 and the Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Amendment Bill 2000. At that time I pointed to the folly of parliament seeking to anticipate the pace of technological development in this area and, indeed, in any other area in a modern economy and society. I pointed to the folly of a parliament then regulating, according to its expectations, as to how technology would develop and how consumers would respond to that technology. It seems to me that very often parliamentarians overanticipate and overregulate. They think that they are smarter than the people in the community who make decisions about whether products are attractive. They also feel that they are smart enough to forecast changes in technology. It is on that basis that much of Australia’s media and broadcasting legislation has been developed over the last couple of decades.

When I was speaking on this legislation in 2000, I referred to the main decisions that were contained in it. The first decision was that free-to-air broadcasters will be required to continue their existing analog broadcast for at least eight years. The second decision was that free-to-air broadcasters will be required to provide a standard definition digital television signal at all times. The third decision was that free-to-air broadcasters must provide a high-definition digital broadcast for at least 20 hours a week. The fourth decision was that datacasting will be subject to restrictions to ensure it is different from current television services. The fifth decision was that free-to-air broadcasters will be allowed to provide digital enhancements to their main simulcast programs, provided they do not amount to a separate multichannelling program. I think you will see immediately what I mean about overprescriptive legislation.

The datacasting regime provided for in the 2000 bill was designed to ensure that datacasters cannot offer a de facto broadcasting service in competition with free-to-air providers—that is, the datacasting provisions were designed to avoid the possibility of another broadcasting service coming in through the backdoor. Because of the government’s concern to protect the position of free-to-air commercial broadcasters, the government developed very restrictive boundaries for datacasting. They are quite astonishing. For example, datacasters are able to provide a moving video program of any length on an individual news, financial market and business information or weather item, as long as the program is only available to a viewer selecting from a menu on the screen, that it is not hosted by a presenter and that it is not linked to another item. Datacasters are prevented from showing most genres of television programs, including drama, current affairs, sporting programs and events, music programs, entertainment and lifestyle programs, comedy, documentaries, reality television programs, children’s programs, light entertainment—I think heavy entertainment was allowed—and variety programs, compilation programs, quiz programs and game shows. It is absurd that legislation was passed in the parliament in 2000 that was so heavily prescriptive.

It is against that background that I would like to say that this committee’s report entitled Digital television: who’s buying it? is a breath of fresh air. I do not say that I would necessarily agree with all of it, nor most humbly would I assert that I was as well versed in these issues as the members of the committee who sat long and hard during the inquiry process. But the flavour of the recommendations is a very welcome one and it does encourage people like me to think that perhaps progress is being made.

There are a number of positive recommendations. For example, the committee recommends that the Australian government remove the programming restrictions on multichannelling for national free-to-air networks as soon as possible and no later than the beginning of 2007. So here is a recommendation to remove restrictions with that basic deregulatory disposition that I articulated earlier in my remarks. Of course, I would be well inclined to support such a recommendation. There is another one. The committee recommends that the Australian government remove all restrictions on multichannelling for commercial free-to-air networks on 1 January 2008. Again, that is a recommendation to remove restrictions.

We then go the other way in recommendation 6 where the committee recommends that the government maintain the current minimum high definition broadcasting quota for free-to-air networks until 1 January 2011. In this instance the committee is saying that a quota or a prescription be maintained until 2011, so I become a little more concerned about such restrictions. In recommendation 7 the committee recommends that prior to 1 January 2007 the Australian government undertake a review to determine whether current high definition quotas for free-to-air networks should be removed, increased or decreased. So here the committee is not making a call but at least it is opening up one possibility, and that is that these quotas be removed.

Another relevant recommendation by the committee is that the Australian government reconsider current restrictions on datacasting with a view to lifting restrictions on 1 January 2008. That is consistent with what I was saying back in 2000—that legislation developed by the government in relation to datacasting and high definition television seems overly prescriptive. I understand the fact that free-to-air television providers have made large investments in their channels and therefore deserve some sort of security in relation to the arrangements for the future. But I am not sure that it follows that free-to-air television providers be fully protected against competition, whether it comes through datacasting or through other channels. We are in the 21st century and there is a variety of ways in which information is communicated. Young people in particular are accessing the increased variety of ways that information is communicated. I think we need to be very careful about locking in for very long periods a legislative framework that protects free-to-air television providers effectively from competition from these other forms. I understand and accept the philosophy that they need some certainty, having committed large sums within a regulatory framework, and that that regulatory framework should not change unpredictably in ways that make those investments highly risky, because in the future those investments might not occur.

I fully accept that, but that does not mean that the Australian parliament should always seek to protect traditional forms of television and communication from other more innovative high-technology forms of television, datacasting and communication. The philosophy that I think should be followed by the Australian parliament is not to overly prescribe in regulations that we develop in this area. I very strongly urge fellow parliamentarians: do not try to predict the nature and pace of technological change in this area. We are not equipped to do that, and establishing regulations around the anticipation that there will be a certain percentage take-up of high-definition television is pure folly.

I finish where I started: by saying—confessing openly—I am not an expert in this area. I think the committee has done a good job. I congratulate the chairperson, the member for Lindsay, for doing a good job and I congratulate the other members of the committee. It does seem to me that these recommendations constitute progress, but let us not get too heavily bogged down in over-regulating this industry in the future.

See this speech in context