Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006. Labor welcomes the fact this legislation has finally made it to the floor of this Committee. This short bill contains a number of technical amendments, which should allow the commencement of digital television services in remote parts of Western Australia. If this legislation is passed, people in places such as Geraldton and Kalgoorlie will be able to enjoy a similar range of services to people who live in Perth. They will also, for the first time, be able to enjoy superior picture and sound quality offered by digital television. Labor supports the objective and will support this bill through the Committee.

Digital television broadcast commenced in metropolitan Australia in 2001 and broadcasters in most regional areas of Australia began transmission in 2004. The rollout of infrastructure for digital broadcasting has progressed well since. The free-to-air digital TV is available to about 85 per cent of Australian households and the state capitals and around 31 regional centres have access to all of their existing free-to-air television channels in digital.

However, there are currently no provisions in the Broadcasting Services Act which establishes a framework for establishing digital television in the remote parts of Australia. These are large areas of territory that are serviced by only two commercial broadcasters. In places like outback Western Australia, the population is disbursed over long distances and broadcasters need to invest in many transmission sites in order to reach their audience. This legislation seeks to reduce the costs of making that investment and improves incentives for remote broadcasters to invest in digital transmission equipment.

I turn to a couple of specifics in the bill. The bill provides that, in remote licence areas, broadcasters will be permitted, either individually or through the establishment of a joint venture company, to broadcast a new digital-only service. The new service will also broadcast the digital version of the existing analog services on the same channel. In technical terms, that is what is known as multichannelling. Digital broadcasting is about six times more efficient than analog broadcasting in its use of specific spectrum. Broadcasters will also be able to comfortably transmit three digital services within the space occupied by one analog channel.

The bill also contains a further measure to reduce the cost of establishing a new digital service in remote Australia. In metropolitan and regional markets, licensees are required to broadcast 1,040 hours per year in high-definition digital format. The costs of triple-casting—that is, broadcasting in analog, standard definition digital and high-definition digital—are of course substantial. This is particularly the case for small broadcasters. To address this issue, the bill allows remote licensees to elect to broadcast only in standard definition format. The ability to opt out of high-definition broadcasting will significantly reduce the cost of providing digital services in remote areas.

Labor understands that, on the basis of the provisions of the bill, Prime and WIN have indicated that they will form a joint venture company to introduce a new digital-only service in remote Western Australia in 2007—next year. The new service will consist primarily of content from the Ten Network that is seen in Perth. Over time, these changes could lead to the commencement of digital services in other remote licence areas in the Northern Territory, Queensland, South Australia and New South Wales. Labor welcomes these measures to give broadcasters and viewers an incentive to invest in digital television and will support their passage through the House.

I would like to take the opportunity provided by this bill to also make some comments on broader aspects of digital television. The policy changes that are required in this area are obviously not limited to digital television. It is now more than five years since free-to-air digital television broadcasts began in this country. Unfortunately, the take-up has been disappointingly low and slow. According to industry data, about 25 per cent of households have purchased the necessary equipment to receive terrestrial digital free-to-air broadcasts. If you add in the households that receive digital television through pay TV, take-up rises to around 30 per cent, but not all these households can receive the digital free-to-air channels as well.

Back in 2000, the government set a target to switch off analog broadcasting by the end of 2008, which today is not too far away. Of course, it has been clear for some time that there is no way this target can be met. No government could turn off analog broadcasts and leave millions of families staring at blank screens, with useless equipment. The government has accepted that the digital television policies that it has pursued for the last eight years have failed. In July, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts announced that she had postponed the analog switch-off until some time between 2010 and 2012. For many in the community, the switch to digital television is a somewhat esoteric issue. There is a very low level of awareness in the community about the benefits of digital television and why it matters—not just for viewers but also for the broadcasting industry and the economy in general, and I think that is a view held by most people on both sides of the House. It is certainly my personal view as well as that of the broader Labor Party.

As I mentioned earlier, digital broadcasting is far more efficient in its use of sparse spectrum. There are large gains to be made, though, from freeing up the spectrum currently used for analog broadcasting for alternative services. Reclaimed spectrum could be used to provide a host of new services to the community. The part of the spectrum used by broadcasting is known in the industry as ‘the sweet spot’. Its characteristics mean that it is perfect for wireless broadband. In the future, business and consumers will want to be able to get broadband any time, anywhere. There is a clear direction and a path in view of that. We need to make sure that there is sufficient spectrum to provide these new services as they become needed. Reclaimed spectrum could also be used to deliver several new television channels and increase choice for consumers. This is particularly important, I think, for consumers in regional and rural areas or in remote parts of Australia. These could be community channels, channels catering to special interests or in fact new commercial networks.

In the digital divide, the benefit of redeploying the spectrum currently used for analog broadcasting could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars to Australia. In Britain, for example, the government has estimated that overcoming the digital divide is worth up to £2.2 billion to their economy. We do not know what size the benefit could be for Australia because the government simply has not made an effort to calculate or pursue that. This is, of course, not a surprise: a study of the benefits of digital transmission would only highlight the real cost to Australia of the flawed policies that the government has pursued over the last few years which have in fact held back digital television.

Rapid transition to digital is important for the local television production industry. In countries like the United Kingdom, the United States and Germany, consumers are rapidly embracing digital applications like interactive television. We only need look at the internet and sites like YouTube and others that are making headlines around the world to see the rapid pace at which consumers will adapt and adopt new technologies if given the opportunity. I think Australia would be in that same category. Again, I say this would be a real bonus, a real choice for consumers, particularly in regional parts. I note the member for Hinkler in the chamber, and I am assuming he would agree that it would give more choice and more opportunities for rural consumers. If the producers of Australian content do not keep up with these developments this country is at risk of losing lucrative export markets. Exports have historically played an important role in underpinning domestic production. A lengthy transition to digital television also imposes a direct cost on the Commonwealth budget.

According to the government’s own figures, every year around $75 million is required to meet the analog broadcasting costs of the ABC and SBS and to assist regional broadcasters. The economic case for switching to digital is clear—without putting a pun on it! It should be a national priority to achieve the switch-over to digital as soon as possible, as soon as practicable, and the government should be working very hard in that direction. If we are to achieve switch-over by 2012 the government needs to develop a set of policies to drive a rapid take-up, education and an explanation of what the benefits are. I do not think the vast majority of consumers have got any idea why they should spend any money to go to digital. We actually get quite a decent service as it is, so if they do not know the benefits they are not going to switch over. Digital take-up in Australia lags far behind comparable countries. As I said before, the United States, Britain, Germany, Ireland, Canada, Norway and Sweden are all countries way ahead of us in the game.

Last month the minister announced that the government would develop a digital action plan for take-up. This plan is long overdue. Let us see what the government will provide. The government needs to provide some detail on how switch-over will be coordinated. Consumers need to understand how this will actually work. A concerted effort needs to be made to increase consumer awareness of the process of digital transmission and its benefits. A survey conducted last year by the Australian Communications and Media Authority shows that there is much work to be done. It found that about 17 per cent of responders had never heard of digital television, 45 per cent did not know if digital television services were even available in their area, 42 per cent said they were just not interested in switching to digital and 38 per cent were not aware that digital television would replace the current analog service. They are pretty frightening figures.

There is still no requirement that analog equipment will be properly labelled so that consumers will know that it needs to be replaced or converted when the switch-over occurs. Another significant policy gap is the fact that no details have been provided on what assistance will be available to the disadvantaged who are left behind when the switch-over occurs. In the US, the congress allocated nearly $US1 billion for subsidies for the purchase of set-top boxes. In Britain, £400,000 has been set aside from the BBC licence fees to assist the disadvantaged to switch over. So the task of achieving digital switch-over is a huge policy challenge and does involve a cost to government. In the UK, where 72 per cent of households have access to digital TV, it has been estimated that only 40 per cent of televisions have actually been converted.

Evidence from Australia and around the world has also shown that the best way to drive up digital take-up is to allow media companies to provide consumers with access to attractive new content. So far the government has made only modest steps in this direction. The government has said that there will be new digital services but has provided little detail on the services that will be permitted. On Tuesday the minister stated that the new in-home digital channels will be datacasting or narrowcasting services. Labor is concerned that the conditions on the minister’s promised new and innovative services will be so restrictive that they will not be attractive to media companies or prospective viewers, and you can easily understand any associated problems if that were to be the case.

The minister has talked about niche services like a boating channel or a classified advertising channel. While these services will attract some consumers, it is highly unlikely that narrow services like these will attract significant numbers of people to invest in digital set-top boxes. You also have to ask whether it is good value for taxpayers to tie up hundreds of millions of dollars worth of valuable spectrum providing services of such narrow appeal. Labor does welcome the government’s decision to allow free-to-air broadcasters to run a second digital-only channel. In the UK, multichannelling has been the main driver of digital take-up, and it should be noted for Australia. For the one-off cost of a set-top box, British consumers are able to access around 30 digital channels. The government has sought to restrict multichannelling, however, in a way which will limit the potential of the new multichannelling to drive consumer take-up. Until 2009, broadcasters will be able to multichannel only in high-definition format. High-definition equipment is at least three times more expensive than standard definition equipment, a cost that most family households cannot afford. Only around seven per cent of Australian households have actually got HD equipment. It must be doubtful whether any commercial broadcaster will target a market so small in size.

The government has also agreed to relax the absurd genre restrictions which currently limit what the ABC and SBS can show on their digital channels. Labor welcomes this direction. Lifting the genre restrictions is a policy that the opposition has advocated since before the last election. As always, it is good to see government taking up good opposition policies in areas such as this and others. Under the current rules the ABC and SBS are permitted to multichannel. The ABC has used these provisions to establish ABC2, and SBS has launched a World News Channel. Labor commends the ABC and SBS for trying to drive digital take-up despite their limited resources and challenges from government.

To date, the efforts of the national broadcasters to stimulate consumer interest in digital TV have been hamstrung by the restrictive rules which limit their programming. The ABC cannot show a national news bulletin, national current affairs programs or drama on ABC2. Similarly, while SBS can broadcast foreign language bulletins on its World News Channel, it is not able to broadcast English language bulletins from countries like Germany, Israel or New Zealand. The genre restrictions make distinctions which are arbitrary and illogical. For example, ABC2 is permitted to broadcast public policy programs, such as Insiders, but not current affairs programs, like The 7.30 Report.

In the UK, extra channels and interactive services offered by the BBC have made an important contribution to generating consumer demand for digital. Under its new charter, the BBC will be given a leading role in building a digital Britain. Labor believes that our national broadcasters need to be given the regulatory freedom and financial resources to undertake a similar task in Australia. In July, the minister announced as part of her media package the government’s intention to relax the genre restrictions. As I said, the announcement is welcome, but extra funding is also needed if the ABC and SBS are to make the most of digital broadcasting. In the last budget, however, the government rejected bids by the ABC and SBS to produce new digital content. The government should go back and re-examine this decision so that the national broadcasters can play a significant role in driving digital take-up across the country.

In conclusion, it does have to be noted that the government has been extremely tardy in progressing the changes contained in this bill through the parliament. We hear a lot of noise from those opposite about their commitment to regional and remote Australia, but the practical measures contained in this bill have been very low on their list of priorities. The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) was introduced into the other place in June 2005. It was not until August 2006 that the government saw fit to bring it on for debate.

Since July 2005, the Howard government has had a majority in the Senate. Since it took control of the Senate, the government has made time in the program for things that it really cares about but not for others. It made time to ram through the legislation for the full sale of Telstra. It has made time to pass its extreme industrial relations legislation. These are the things that have been the government’s priorities this term: setting up the fire sale of Telstra, cutting workers’ penalty rates and allowing workers to be unfairly dismissed. This is the real reason why sensible, practical measures like the ones contained in this bill have been delayed for so long. Labor is pleased that the government has finally given this legislation an opportunity to be debated. Labor will be supporting this bill so that remote digital television services can begin to be rolled out across remote parts of Australia.

See this speech in context