Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Sustainable Development and Cities) Share this | Hansard source

I congratulate the member for Holt for introducing the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2008. I have some empathy for him because I had the honour of introducing the May 2007 version of the legislation into the House of Representatives and, some months earlier, road testing a demonstration of the digital technology. A lot of people were wondering what I was doing. The concept of digital radio, and the functionality that it offers, was not well grounded in the broader audience at the time we were working out what technical standard to operate, but it is pleasing that we will start to see it materialise in the near term.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, the member for Holt, said, the bill before the House will amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the Radio Communications Act 1992. The amendments will extend the deadline for commercial broadcasters to commence digital radio services in the mainland state capital cities by six months, to 1 July. They will remove the requirement for digital radio services to commence in Hobart at the same time as in mainland capital cities by reclassifying the Hobart market as regional. The amendments will also retain an option for community radio stations to take up shares in joint-venture companies managing the transmission of digital radio services.

The transition to digital is arguably the most important strategic issue facing Australian radio since the introduction of FM services in the 1970s and early eighties. The coalition government introduced the legislation that facilitated this transition, the 2007 bill that was touched on earlier. It has emerged, though, that some of the time frames in that legislation are now proving to be rather challenging and problematic. The six-month delay for the capital city switch-over is very welcome and very important. Its importance is probably best understood by the licence holders, in that a failure to meet the switch-over by that deadline leaves open the possibility of sanctions against those licence holders and even the loss of their licences. So it is wise to add the extra six months to the rollout, taking it to 1 July 2009 rather than 1 January.

The reason for that, as was explained to me as the former shadow minister in this area, is that the availability of the technology—the opportunity to physically put in place the multiplexes—has proved to be more of a challenge than some anticipated. There is no lack of desire among the capital city radio broadcasters to invest in that transition, but there are some obstacles to securing the required equipment and having it in place, operational and tested so that the switch-over can be as painless as possible. The six-month extension is something the opposition certainly supports. We acknowledge the need for it and welcome the government’s measure to provide it.

This leads me to another area that relates to Hobart. During my visit to Tasmania and my consultation with the broadcasting sector as the shadow minister, it was evident to me that the size of the market and the investment required to make the transition were a real challenge for Hobart. I understand—and I stand corrected if my recollection is wrong—that there are only two commercial broadcasters in Hobart. That of itself is not quite the critical mass you are looking for to bring about the change. The reclassification of the Hobart market as a regional market such as those of Wollongong, Geelong, Newcastle and the Gold Coast is a smart move. It enables the government to address the fact that in some of these regional markets there is a serious case for assistance with the investment required to bring about the change. I hope this reclassification of Hobart is an acknowledgement that it will need some help. I note the commercial radio industry expects that the switch-over will take place on 1 May 2009. Hopefully in the lead-up to that time, certainly after Christmas, awareness of that change will be promoted. I extend my best wishes for a successful transition to all those in the commercial radio industry who are involved with it.

The final measure in the bill, which the parliamentary secretary touched on, is an interesting one. Those outside parliament will probably wonder what it means. ‘Reprofiling’ is a concept that says you push the money out a bit further. As a result of the reprofiling, or deferral, of funding for community radio, in many cases community radio was not in a position to become a shareholder in the joint-venture companies established to set up the multiplex digital transmission systems needed to broadcast into their markets. That lack of clarity about the available resourcing meant no person could make financial undertakings, because they could not be certain they could meet them.

Most community broadcasters run on the smell of an oily rag—with an enormous amount of volunteer commitment, passion and enthusiasm and usually not a lot of cash. I think, on average, they have a total turnover of about $200,000 a year. That makes it hard for them to enter into a commercial relationship, such as a joint venture, and say not only, ‘Yes, we want to participate as a shareholder,’ but also, ‘We undertake to fulfil calls for capital to invest in the multiplex technologies that are required.’ So they were kind of stuck. Their hands were tied behind their backs. The reprofiling basically meant they were dealt out of that opportunity. I am not certain the case for reprofiling was particularly strong but it happened and it is history now. Events of recent weeks have shown that resources with many more digits on them than are required to facilitate the participation of the community broadcasting sector in a timely way can be made available.

The third element of this bill seeks to reopen those joint venture arrangements. We needed to have those in place around May, if my memory serves me correctly. But the opportunity has passed. Those joint venture arrangements should have been finalised by now. The opportunity to apply for licensing and the right to operate these multiplex transmission systems is now behind us. This bill says, ‘Because the funding wasn’t there, we need to make sure the community sector has an opportunity to participate in these joint ventures.’ Those community broadcasters have no duty to participate; this simply re-establishes the opportunity for them to do so. Whether or not they choose to participate, the two-ninths entitlement of multiplex transmission infrastructure is still available to them. The joint venture would allow them to purchase a share of the transmission capability. If they choose not to, they will still be entitled to access the two-ninths but they will need to come to some other arrangement to finance that participation.

A community broadcaster with an average turnover of $200,000 would be in quite a fragile and vulnerable financial position from which to enter into, say, a leasing arrangement with that broadcasting capability. Without funding committed to enable them to purchase a share—that is, to buy in and therefore invest in the call-up for capital to put the infrastructure in place—community broadcasters need the certainty of recurrent funding to purchase access to that broadcasting infrastructure.

Either way, it is all about money. Either way, it is all about the community broadcasting sector I think rightfully wanting to know—screaming out for and demanding information from the government—just what kind of financial support they can count on to get through that transitional period. It will vary from region to region. Different community broadcasters have different capabilities to make those contributions. I again emphasise that they are overwhelmingly run on a very resourceful but not well-resourced basis—that is, with a lot of volunteer commitment and passion amongst the community and not a whole lot of cash. That is why I am hopeful and optimistic the government will be suitably accommodating of their financial requirements and assist with that transition. I hope so. In concluding the second reading debate the minister said:

The government is supportive of the community broadcasters participation in digital radio, recognising the vital role the community sector plays in providing diversity, localism and grassroots participation in the Australian media.

I say: hear, hear. That is absolutely right. I hope that we can count on the government carrying through on that sentiment. It is a valuable sentiment but one that needs to be backed up with cash.

In politics, the term ‘leadership’ is often synonymous with the term ‘cash’. When someone is saying, ‘Show me some leadership,’ they are usually saying, ‘Show me some cash.’ In the spirit of a movie with a lead actor who is not much taller than me, I say, ‘Show me the money.’ That is what the community broadcasters are saying, and I hope that they get some joy in the coming period so they can plan with certainty. I emphasise that they need to know what the upfront cash is so that they can in good faith enter into a joint venture and therefore deliver when that joint venture company calls for cash. They need to know that those resources will be available. Alternatively, if they do not buy into multiplexing joint venture arrangements, they need to be certain that they will have the recurrent funding to buy broadcast capability on a commercial basis—hopefully with a recognition that they add considerably to the listening audience offering. And I say ‘add’ to it, because the evidence is fairly compelling.

Last week the minister launched the results of the 2008 McNair community radio listener survey. The interesting thing is that a little over 4½ million people turn on and listen to a community radio station in any average week—

See this speech in context