Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Hansard source

In presenting the case for the government on the Communications Legislation Amendment (Enforcement Powers) Bill 2006 and the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 2006, I want to start with a contextual point and then deal with, firstly, the comments from those on both sides of the House; secondly, some of the specific provisions of the enforcement powers bill; and, thirdly, the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill.

Firstly, I want to put the legislation in the context of technological development. These bills come about for a very clear reason. They come about because of an evolution in technology. The world that was in place two decades ago, even a decade ago, is evolving rapidly. Against that background, Senator Coonan, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, has set out to revolutionise the marketplace for media and communications. These bills are within that context. In particular Minister Coonan is helping to establish a regime which will allow Australia over the next 20 years to maximise the opportunities for new content, for ordinary consumers throughout Australia to have access to as wide an array of content and as many options as possible, through the creation of digital TV and the supporting services that provide it. In addition, this is about ensuring that there is adequate protection for the consumers, for the viewers and for the general population against any abuse of market power or of the broadcasting regime.

Let me turn now to the comments of those who have spoken. I thank all five members who have contributed to the debate today. I want to deal firstly with the point raised by the member for Oxley. He made a passing reference to the fact that this legislation was overdue. We make no apology for the fact that we were utterly comprehensive in our consultations with the community. We began with the Ramsay report recommendations of 2004 and went on to the discussion paper in November 2005. There was the establishment, along the way, of ACMA, and now we have this legislation in 2006.

The honourable member for O’Connor made some powerful points about the need and the capacity to link what we are doing with the social subject matter of much of television—in particular, sports—and the fact that this legislation or subsequent legislation could become a vehicle for ensuring that there is compliance on drug testing. Whether or not this is the appropriate vehicle, his substantive point is powerful. There should be no soft options in this community and over the coming 20 years for our major sporting bodies in Australia to avoid drug testing and drug detection.

The member for Melbourne set out a case which was allegedly pro competition in theory but unreservedly afraid of the market in practice. He diverted largely from much of the substance of these two bills but focused very much on the general notion of competition in broadcasting. I reject absolutely the fundamental principle that the government’s direction is anticompetitive. What we are doing is precisely what he in theory seeks to achieve—and that is to allow the market to provide as many options as possible. What we are seeking to do is to remove restrictions. That is the broad general direction which the minister for communications and the Prime Minister are taking in pursuing our suite of communications reforms. These two bills fit within that context because they would provide hard enforcement mechanisms if there were any attempts to misuse that position, whether direct, intentional or even negligent. We are putting forward a new regime to protect the public, and we do that without apology to anybody and with recognition that the complaints made by the member for Melbourne are absolutely and utterly unfounded.

We also heard from the member for Hinkler. He set out a position which I think is very important. He is concerned about standards in the Australian community as is the member for O’Connor. His view is that we have to be ever vigilant of abuse of the public’s capacity to watch in confidence without knowing what may befall young Australians under the age of 16 if there is not adequate warning of what is about to be seen. Again, his points about protecting public sensibility and morality are strong and powerful and are consistent with a view he has taken over many years.

The final member to speak, the member for Lowe, set out a position effectively against the general population having a full right of access to as many different sporting events as possible. There was an implicit endorsement of siphoning. It was a position which I found quite extraordinary. What he was effectively saying was, ‘Let’s walk away from the antisiphoning provisions which we have set in place to protect the broad population against the loss of events and icons which are essentially of national importance and national significance.’ I thank all of the speakers, but I respectfully make those answers in response.

In relation to the two different bills, the first thing I want to do is to look at the Communications Legislation Amendment (Enforcement Powers) Bill 2006. To sum up the government’s position, this bill reforms the Australian Communications and Media Authority’s regulatory powers in order to strengthen its capacity to effectively regulate the broadcasting industry. Essentially it fills a gap, because at present ACMA only has at its disposal the options to impose criminal penalties or to cancel or suspend licences. It lacks appropriate responses where incidents are minor or are one-off events. Against that background, this bill seeks to set out an appropriate regime which allows for the graduation of enforcement powers. I think that that is a sensible, moderate and reasonable step which responds to the new regime.

The second of the two bills in this cognate debate is the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 2006. This bill relates to the amendments to be made in the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006, the digital TV bill. That provides a commercial television broadcasting licence which will hereafter authorise the provision of more than one service—or channel, if you prefer—from 1 January 2007. The key thing here is that it allows for the bundling or grossing-up of fees across an entire entity. The bill amends the definition of ‘gross earnings’ to reflect the fact that commercial television broadcasting licences will be able to earn revenue from the provision of multiple services. It recognises the reality of how these services operate. Taken together, these two bills represent an evolution in the broad package of protections in relation to communications legislation and television licence fees. They represent a recognition of the role to be played by digital television and, hopefully, will assist that process and help more Australians to see digital television. For those reasons I am delighted to commend both bills to the House. I thank the minister for communications, Senator Helen Coonan, and all of those officers and staff who have worked with her on creating this package of legislation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

See this speech in context