Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I apologise to those in the gallery, because some of them may be a little confused as to what the legislation before the House today, the Broadcasting and Other Legislation Amendment (Deregulation) Bill 2014, actually entails. We heard the member for Wakefield talking about pretty well everything else there. He did mention, though, towards the end of his contribution the word 'policy'. That is very much, as I think we all know, a policy-free zone on the other side of the House at the moment. Empathising with every Australian is fine if you offer a solution, but there are no solutions coming from those opposite. It is only complaints—no solutions.

We are in the business—tragically, it is our lot in life—of fixing up the mess of six years that we inherited from those on the other side. They were the bad tenants that trashed the joint and have locked the door to stop us getting back in to fix it. That is the reality. The debt that we inherited was not a clean sheet of paper. It was not a clean sheet of paper that we inherited on 8 September. We had deficits literally as far as the eye could see that were booked up by the previous government—some might even say booby traps left by the previous government for the incoming government to deal with. Every single day, this government is having to deal with the reality that our revenue is $110 million less than our expenditure, and it is simply unsustainable. So, until those on the other side can offer a solution, they deserve not to be heard.

To the bill at hand. I am pleased to rise and support it, and I am pleased to see the Minister for Communications in the chamber here before me. I will just reference some of the comments that he made in a keynote address recently. He mentioned semaphores, and so I thought I would reflect on them. There is a semaphore that runs up the Tamar River, Deputy Speaker. You may not be aware of it, but many years ago it was used to signal to the town of Launceston when ships were coming through the heads at Low Head. There was a second semaphore at Mount Direction, about halfway down the Tamar River, on the eastern side of the Tamar River, in the electorate of my colleague the member for Bass, and then one on Windmill Hill. For those who know where the aquatic centre now is in Launceston, right next to it, on Windmill Hill, there was formerly a semaphore thing. But I guess it goes to show that communications is an evolving and changing place every day whether it be from carrier pigeons to the marathon runners to the mail services to the telephonic services, satellite services increasingly and, of course, the world we live in today that is inhabited by the internet, email and the different ways that we communicate.

I represent a regional electorate. I represent those communities essentially outside of the population centres in Tasmania. My electorate covers 50 per cent of the island state. The communities that make up my electorate reasonably demand and expect that their communication services are at least comparable, and it is so pleasing to see that when the new government came to power the Minister for Communications refocused the disaster that was the NBN rollout; there was an attention to those communities that were not like South Sydney, Caulfield or so forth, which had quite reasonable ADSL services. The emphasis or attention was on those communities that had none or very poor communications. That has been welcomed.

We have had a very successful rollout of wireless NBN throughout my electorate. Indeed, the simplicity and the capacity of people to be able to, if they wish, sign up for that technology has been encouraged and welcomed. The mobile phone black spots—I am going to put my hand up and say that we are the mobile phone black spot capital of Australia. I think we nominated over 140 sites. I understand that the $100 million the current government has committed will not be able to solve every issue, but certainly there are communities there that are anxiously awaiting news in that regard.

But television absolutely is still important. It is a way that many regional households and communities still like to get their evening news. There were real challenges. I note the comment of the member for Wakefield and am very pleased that in his electorate the transfer over from analog technology to digital was a smooth one. That has not always been the case in parts of the electorate that I represent. The topography in particular has presented challenges. I again thank the minister, his staff and the department for responding when we have communicated with his office about the challenges that some communities are still having in respect of television communications.

But the critical thing to remember here is that there has been broad consultation about this bill. There are a number of recommendations after that consultation. Out of the Senate committee report there were two recommendations that addressed some of the concerns that were raised, and it is very pleasing to see that that consultation has taken place. It is good to know that those on the other side are indeed supporting this bill.

The purpose of the bill is to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, the Radio Communications Act 1992 and the Australian Communications and Media Authority Act 2005 to implement industry preferred changes in this portfolio. The bill intends to amend or remove provisions in the act which were associated with simulcasts of analog and digital television signals in the transition to digital broadcasting and the restack of spectrum which was commenced after the last analog signal was switched off. I will not go into detail in that space; others have covered that. The bill will also rationalise requirements for operators in the industry, including removing the requirements for free-to-air broadcasters to report annually, so it is a red tape issue as much as anything else—not reducing the standards but just making it easier for business to report. What we want from business and business in this space in particular is to offer the best services that they can to as many Australians as they possibly can. Compliance and regulation are indeed important; but, when that compliance and regulation becomes burdensome, it is the responsibility of government to responsibly look at removing where they can. That has been a priority of this government since day one.

It also changes parts of captioning target obligations for subscription television and the assessment of quality of captioning of live and prerecorded broadcasts for free-to-air and subscription broadcasters.

As I mentioned, the communications portfolio has done its bit and identified as a particular target of reform red tape and green tape as particular targets for reform, as they are subject to substantial levels of very complex and sometimes necessary regulation. But, where it is not necessary, we have acted. The proposed changes have been introduced as a result of consultation with industry and other stakeholders, including the hearing impaired. Indeed, those groups have expressed some concerns, and they have been addressed in the changes and amendments to this bill. The bill responds to those as well as other concerns about subscription television licences and the radio and television broadcasting sector.

Free-to-air television lobby group Free TV in its submission to the National Commission of Audit claimed that free-to-air broadcasters were subject to a considerable number of reporting requirements, including those that were unnecessary or had substantial penalties for non-compliance. A number of government members have also for a long time expressed concern about the loss of local media voices and that the local diversity and competition in regional and rural areas would be lost unless adjustments were made. Those adjustments have been made. To reflect: I do not have any one centre. I have three metropolitan centres in which media providers are located. Indeed, their transmissions into regional areas of Tasmania are absolutely critical to services and to the capacity of people to receive their evening news via television. In my electorate—or any large rural and regional electorate—we would be particularly concerned if television and radio in the forms they are currently presented were in any way compromised.

I believe also that people should voice in some respects their discontent with the ABC's decisions, particularly in regard to rural and regional Australia. The recommendations that came out of the Lewis report highlighted the fact that there was absolutely no necessity for services, particularly services in regional Australia, to be impacted by those modest cuts. The capacity was there, within management, with inefficiencies—that can be found in every business—to make those things. Whereas it appears that decisions have been made—which perhaps were the decisions that management had already reconciled to undertake—that have been detrimental to some services in regional Australia, and regional Tasmania as well, and that is particularly disappointing.

The legislation that rationalises the delivery of new digital television will also be welcomed by the people in my electorate of Lyons who have been particularly affected by the switch-over from analog to digital services. As I mentioned before, we have had major problems in Tasmania in certain areas that we are still addressing that have much to do with the topography of certain parts of the state. In particularly hilly areas, with mountains in between—often in country communities—newly designated towers which are supposed to provide signals have not provided that. During the switch from analog to digital some people who had enjoyed full television reception for years lost all services. I refer particularly to my constituent Derek Thompson from Moltema in north-west Tasmania. His situation is typical of a number of calls we have had in that particular area over a number of months.

Moltema is a country area about 10 minutes drive north of Deloraine, a major northern rural Tasmanian town. The Thompsons, like most of their neighbours, have always had good television on analog, but it is one of those black-spot areas in my electorate of Lyons for mobile phone coverage. So they not only cannot access mobile phone coverage but increasingly they cannot access television. With the switch-over to digital television, Mr Thompson lost all television reception, so basically they lost all contact with the world.

Mr Thompson thought he had prepared for the changeover to digital—previously investigating all the research and installing the necessary equipment—to make the changes smooth. But he and some of his neighbours lost their services anyway. Mr Thompson, despite not having spare cash to invest in all the extras that digital television providers said he needed, persisted; he bought new aerials and other equipment and even climbed up on his roof a number of times to point the aerial in different directions, finally pointing it at a tower on a distant mountain, after it was discovered that a reception tower nearby had been switched off.

We eventually got television reception back for Mr and Mrs Thompson, and then they and their neighbours lost it again when a new 4G mobile network was introduced in their area. We found out that the Thompsons and their neighbours needed to install a filter on the back of their television sets to filter out the interference that came from that new mobile phone network. Fortunately the first filter that he tried was the one that fixed the problem, but it just highlights the fact that there are particular challenges in rural and regional areas that sometimes those living in the big cities do not always appreciate. But again I thank the minister; I thank his staff; and I thank the department for the cooperation and the work they have done in assisting us in finding remedies to a couple of these issues.

See this speech in context