Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Broadcasting and Other Legislation Amendment (Deregulation) Bill 2014. This bill amends three other pieces of legislation, streamlining them into one, to implement industry preferred changes in the communications portfolio.

This bill will amend or remove provisions in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 which were associated with the simulcast of analog and digital television signals in the transition to digital broadcasting and the restack of spectrum which commenced after the last analog signal was switched off. The bill will also amend the framework by which the Australian Communications and Media Authority plans broadcasting services band spectrum. Through the removal of certain requirements in the BSA and the Radiocommunications Act 1992, which are no longer considered necessary.

I welcome the implementation of amendments to this bill for my constituents in my electorate of Paterson, because of the many ways its introduction can directly benefit them. I will focus on one particular amendment that will benefit my constituency—that is, the proposed changes under schedule 2 permeating the digital switch-over and restacking.

By way of providing context, in my electorate unreliable digital television reception is the No. 1 local issue impacting my constituents across the length and breadth of Paterson. Schedule 2 of the bill proposes to remove definitions and references to the simulcast period and the restacking process. It inserts new definitions and descriptions which better reflect the post-analog environment. Greater transparency and less ambiguity in legislation is always a positive step. Based on the feedback of major interest groups at the bill submission stage, this is one area that was incredibly deficient.

At the end of the simulcast period, analog transmissions were to cease and broadcasters were required to meet quotas for the transmission of high definition digital programming. Thousands of my constituents currently suffer poor quality digital television signals that regularly drop out, and more often than normal on hot summer days. Every time the nation gets together to watch a major sporting event, I can almost rely on the digital signal to drop out each and every time. My phone rings off the hook for days. I want to use this speech as an opportunity to tell my electorate I am listening and the government is listening.

This amendment bill makes small but essential changes surrounding the spectrum allocation debate, a debate which I am actively involved in with my local broadcasters, the department and my ministerial colleagues to try to fix these digital issues. I am glad I am able to speak about this bill today because the mess that Labor left spectrum allocations in has contributed to the No. 1 point of aggravation in my electorate.

As I said previously, thousands of my constituents currently suffer poor-quality digital television signals that regularly dropout, even more on hot summer days. Deputy Speaker Kelly, you might ask, 'Why does this matter?' It matters because my sports-mad constituents want nothing more than to watch New South Wales win the State of Origin or Jamie Whincup take on the mountain, but the signal has dropped out on each of these occasions. It matters because my constituents in Paterson deserve better.

The last analogue services ceased in Paterson in November 2012, and a reorganisation of the television services—or a re-stack—commenced in my electorate at that time. It was intended to utilise the most efficient use of digital dividend spectrum resulting from the switch to digital television. In the light of these proposed amendments and their impact upon the references to the core primary commercial television broadcasting services, I want to take the opportunity to discuss how these reforms, had they transpired earlier, may have increased transparency a number of years ago when the previous government hastily switched over from analogue to digital technology.

Prior to the switch-over in November 2012, I warned—repeatedly warned—the previous government that existing self-help transmitters would have to be upgraded and new transmitters installed across my electorate to ensure that my constituents would continue to receive reliable digital television reception. My lobbying to Regional Broadcasting Australia Holdings, which is jointly owned by the commercial broadcasters, resulted in upgrades to self-help transmitters at Elizabeth Beach, Smiths Lake, Stroud, Forster and a new transmitter located at Anna Bay. Today, thousands of my constituents still have unreliable digital television reception. Areas like Karuah, the Tilligerry Peninsula, Medowie, Stroud, East Gresford, Gresford and Bulahdelah either have very little or no service. Prior to November 2012, these residents had reasonably reliable analogue reception to fall back on. Now, they do not.

There are two separate issues at play here: interference and coverage of black spots. The phenomenon of atmospheric ducting, which I am advised creates conditions by which the Illawarra transmitter at Knights Hill, which broadcasts all channels on identical frequencies to the Newcastle transmitter at Mount Sugarloaf, results in major interference and dropouts. My constituents who only have the option of signalling to the Mount Sugarloaf transmitter suffer increased problems relative to their distance to the transmitter, and while conditions that result in atmospheric ducting are more prevalent in warmer weather—which means that many of these issues arise during the major television events, such as the NRL and AFL grand finals and the Bathurst 1000—towns like Bulahdelah face these problems all year round.

More than a third of my constituents have experienced these problems for over five years, and they are justifiably livid. Much of the anger stems from the previous government's 'Get digital ready' campaign that dishonestly—dishonestly!—promised my constituents that the changeover would result in equal to or better than television reception. Many of those contacting my office have never had worse television reception. Prime TV, that was previously broadcast on a different frequency now also fails, along with other channels, since the retune. While the nation enjoyed watching the Bunnies take on the Bulldogs and win their first premiership in 43 years last year, my electorate got the raw end of the carrot after constituents experienced dropouts in the reception all day across vast areas of my electorate.

Before last year's race on the mountain at Bathurst, Ford announced that it would no longer be competing. Now, to Ford and Holden fans this was the end of an era and so this is why there was much interest in the telecast for my constituents, many of whom could not watch it. On every one of these occasions my office phones rang off the hooks for days.

I wrote to Steve Brown, broadcasting engineer and technology manager at NBN TV Newcastle, who I would contend is probably the most knowledgeable expert on the local problems specifically impacting on my electorate. I asked Mr Brown to provide an update on the issue since the retune in September 2014. Mr Brown concedes that the installation of self-help transmitters has largely resolved the majority of interference problems on the Tomaree Peninsula and Anna Bay areas. It has also filled in the coverage gaps in locations like Boat Harbour, Corlette and Nelson Bay.

Mr Brown said, 'The only true fix for this problem is to have Wollongong—the Knights Hill transmitter—and Newcastle—the Mount Sugarloaf transmitter—on different frequencies. However, this will be difficult as no frequencies are available. Adding more, smaller transmitters to provide additional alternative coverage will not provide a 100-per-cent fix to the problem. However, the solution that RBAH has proposed for the Hunter-Port Stephens region will significantly improve the situation. Viewers then need to re-point their antenna to new transmitters. An education-and-awareness campaign targeting affected households as to the benefits in pointing their antenna to the transmitters to optimise their reception and viewing experience is absolutely critical.'

We know that when the self-help transmitter commenced transmission at Anna Bay it provided a fix both to interference and to poor coverage areas in a majority of homes in Anna Bay and surrounding suburbs. When I receive calls from constituents who are still experiencing reception issues in those areas, on almost every occasion the viewer's antenna is not aligned to the optimal transmitter.

I agree with Mr Brown that viewers need to be informed of their options. The commercial broadcasters could assist by running community announcements to educate viewers. When I met with the broadcasters they advised me that if ACMA were unable to reallocate the clashing frequencies then the only other solution was three new sites—at Peppers Mountain in the Stroud region; at Wallaroo Forest to service Karuah, Medowie and Tilligerry Peninsula; and in the Bulahdelah area—plus power upgrades to existing sites, including Gan Gan, and the addition of commercial networks to the Vacy transmitter, that currently only broadcasts ABC and SBS. Despite the fact that Regional Broadcasting Australia Holdings fully funded the latest transmitter installation at Anna Bay to service their viewers, the broadcasters advised that they were unwilling to deliver the proposed package that included similar transmitters without co-funding from the Commonwealth.

My question to Regional Broadcasting Australia is: why were you willing to fund a fix to the problem for your viewers in Anna Bay and surrounding areas while leaving the remaining viewers across my electorate in the dark? While I am extremely disappointed with the commercial broadcasters' request for taxpayers' funds to improve television reception in my electorate, I have met with both the Prime Minister and minister of Communications to ask for this project to be co-funded. I am pleased that both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Communications took the time to listen to my concerns and there is a plan in place.

For remaining households that should be able to access terrestrial signal, the broadcasters that profit from delivering advertising into viewers' homes have a responsibility to their advertisers and to their viewers to ensure the content can be seen. The recent retune has exacerbated an already frustrating situation. In fact, I questioned ACMA about the issue. The response I got from ACMA said, 'There are well-known spectrum constraints in the Newcastle, Sydney, Illawarra areas.' ACMA also advised me they had extensively consulted with broadcasters on this. In fact November 2010 was the first meeting of the restack planning advisory group which involved my regional broadcasters.

What concerns me is the next part. The group discussed these issues and plans for ways to address them. In July 2011 they presented the working group with two options for incorporating the block planning in the use of the channels. Option A was that Newcastle be co-channelled with Bowral and Mittagong, and Illawarra be co-channelled with the Central Coast. Option B was that Newcastle be co-channelled with the Illawarra as it was before and for the Central Coast to be co-channelled with Bowral and Mittagong.

In the government's view, through ACMA, the preferred option was option A. This would remove the problem of occasional interference by seasonal ducting through co-channelling down to the Central Coast. That was not a huge issue because the Central Coast in most parts can tune into the Sydney stations. But what we found in the July 2011 meeting was that none of the broadcasters in the Hunter supported option A. Their concern was that if people tuned in to the Sydney service in the event of a ducting event, they might never retune to regional services and therefore cost a loss of revenue. I say to them: you made a decision to increase this problem; you need to make a decision and fund the solution to this problem. I call on them to do it urgently.

This bill will also change aspects of captioning obligations for subscription television and the assessment of quality of captioning of live and pre-recoded broadcasts for free-to-air and subscription broadcasters. I welcome the changes proposed in the captioning of programs to further aid the vision impaired. My electorate of Paterson has one of the oldest demographics nationwide and features a high volume of aged care facilities where these concerns have been related to me. I am enthusiastic about the proposed changes to amend part 9D of the BSA to accommodate complaints in relation to captioning. According to the explanatory memorandum, the proposed changes aim to improve administration arrangements and increase flexibility for free-to-air broadcasters and subscription television licensees in complying with caption regulations.

Although, a lot of my constituents could argue what is the point of captioning—when a third of my constituents cannot even see the television screens let alone the captions. I have spoken on this issue ad nauseam advocating for my constituents and I am disappointed in the fact that Regional Broadcasting Australia are yet to submit their proposal to build the additional towers in my electorate.

Shirley Brown, the new chair of RBA, has been in contact with my office and originally told me that this proposal would be submitted during the first sitting week of the parliament. I was then told that this proposal would be submitted on Monday 23 February. Now this has been delayed and I have been told the proposal will be submitted next Wednesday 4 March. I implore RBA to submit their proposal as soon as possible to ensure that we can get the construction underway and the upgrades done before next summer. We, unlike the previous government, will not be handing out money without doing our due diligence. So again I call on broadcasters to lodge their proposal urgently to ensure this infrastructure program is underway as soon as possible. I support this bill and commend it to the parliament.

See this speech in context