Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is wrong, as the member for Banks just prompted. And that is not what we are here for. Yes, we can have our political debates on the deep philosophical policy issues that face our nation; that is fine. Those opposite need to cut out this nonsense of trying to lower themselves to a point of just scaring people to make base political points.

This bill does not reduce captioning standards or targets. Let's just clear that up for one moment. The minister has left the chamber at the moment but I am sure he must have sat there with his mouth tightly closed as he had to listen to a number of the contributions from those opposite who were making downright incorrect, false, misleading, deceptive claims. This bill does a lot of things. It is basically a red tape reduction bill. It is trying to find more efficient administrative arrangements, as this government has been trying to do since it was elected. But please, those opposite, do not come in here and use parliamentary privilege to try and scare vulnerable people in our community by spreading completely false information.

As I said, this bill is about reducing the regulatory burden around captioning standards and targets. If those opposite read the bill or took the time to have their researchers and their speech writers actually look at the details of the bill and the ramifications of the bill, they could not find their way to the speeches that they are contributing today. They should actually look at the facts and maybe then we could move on in a positive fashion.

The coalition went to the election committing to cut the regulatory burden for businesses to boost productivity. Businesses, entities, bodies—whatever you want to call them—within the communications sector are no different. The Department of Communications is a big department. It is responsible for what some would argue are the most central planks of our day-to-day life. Whether it be mobile phones, the digital economy, broadband or online safety and security—keeping in mind that the cyber safety helpline that has been introduced recently has had 95,000 hits in the last financial year—our telephone services, our television services, radio or Australia Post, it is a huge department with a huge responsibility to deliver services that are probably a central plank in the lives of each and every one of us.

What the department is trying to do, as we would expect all departments under the instruction of their ministers and obviously the Prime Minister to do, is find ways to make life easier within the departments when it comes to administrative arrangements. We do not want to try and cut corners or take people to a lesser value for the service but just to find sensible ways to save red tape and that is what this bill does. Again, I repeat: there is nothing in this bill that will reduce captioning standards or targets. They should stop saying that on the other side.

Since the Abbott government was elected, we have been seeking new opportunities to lift the burden on businesses and help them to do what they do best—that is, to employ more people and create economic growth. Governments should not be in the business of employing people. Governments should be in the business of creating an economic environment and a social environment where the rest of the country, the private sector, can thrive, have confidence in the future, prepare to invest and hope that at the end of the day someone will gain a job from it because we are creating wealth and building the essence of this nation. No part of the economy is exempt from this government's search for red tape reduction.

I note the minister has released the Communications portfolio: Deregulation Road Map 2014, which outlined this government's deregulation agenda within the communications portfolio. This bill implements a number of the measures identified in that report. I take great exception to speakers previous who indicated that the member for Wentworth should hang his head in shame because he has not consulted. What a ridiculous assertion to make in this place. There was a deep consultation process through this with industry to identify other opportunities to ease the regulatory burden including repealing the redundant licensing and planning provisions that regulated the digital switchover and restack processes. What a tremendous advancement in our lives. The biggest revolution in this area since the introduction of colour TV, I suspect, in 1975 was the switchover from analogue to digital.

Measures included in the bill will: amend the Australian Communications and Media Authority's planning powers to implement more streamlined processes when planning broadcast spectrum; remove the requirement for reports made by certain subscription television licensees and channel providers to ACMA under the new eligible drama expenditure scheme to be independently audited; introduce minor amendments to the control and ownership provisions; remove the requirement for ACMA to review codes of practice under sections 123A and clause 29 and schedule 6 to the BSA; and, finally, make consequential amendments to schedule 4 of the BSA as a result of the Acts and Instruments (Framework Reform) Bill 2014.

That is what this bill is about.

The last two decades have seen an explosion in the advance of technology and communications in a way that probably most would not have expected. Our children do not quite get it. I have young adult children and they think this is the way the world has always been—we have always had mobile phones and we have always had access to the Internet and done all the things that they have become accustomed to. They look at us cross eyed when we try to inform them that this is not the way it has always been, that 10 and 15 years ago life was vastly different, let alone 35 or 40 years ago, in the case of many who sit in this chamber. The world is a vastly different place and technology has exploded.

The Minister for Communications, who is now back in the chamber, is one of the few in my view who have demonstrated both here in his leadership capacity and in business his acumen and ability to be a leader in this part of the economy. We are in good hands. To assert from the other side that this minister has not consulted or in some way does not understand the implications of the bill that he has signed off on, so to speak, is just a ludicrous claim.

Unfortunately, in many cases laws and regulations have lagged behind those advances and to some degree that is what this bill is about. It is a catch-up bill in many respects. It is trying to bring the regs and red tape processes in line with the advancements in technology. It is a mismatch at the moment—we have processes that are matched to the 1970s and the 1980s let alone the 1990s. This is what this bill is about. We all know that regulatory measures of 15 years ago will not apply. This bill will rectify those outdated regulations and help the industry to remain competitive and not be bogged down with redundant red tape.

There is no doubt that the digital revolution rolls on, with weekly announcements of technological breakthroughs and tech companies announcing with much fanfare their latest gadgets. Members in this place are probably some of the quickest to attach themselves to these gadgets. I notice some of my colleagues walking around with Maxwell Smart watches and so on. We are in the midst of this explosion of technology and we have people of all ages—grannies, grandpas, mums, dads, children and young adults—wanting to be a part of the technological advances that make our lives so much more interesting and make what is going on around the world more accessible, even though some would say that that is not always a good thing. Generally I think it is a good thing. If we can keep technology under control and keep it out of the hands of those who seek to do evil, do wrong and infiltrate the minds of our young people, we are on the right track, but let us not suggest for one minute that the advances in technology have not been good for humankind.

As I have previously stated in this chamber, there are areas of my electorate of Braddon on the north-west coast and King Island that have all sorts of problems with television reception—and I am pleased the minister is here because he and his office are aware of this. I note some of my colleagues, on this side at least, have been drawing attention to this as well. Residents in Queenstown, Rosebery and Strahan—the mining towns of my community; the wealth creators of my region that send off masses of taxes that enable other social services to be provided to every other part of the state of Tasmania—may not be big in number but are mighty in their contribution to our electorate. I get calls from those in the mining towns. It is fair to say that there are not a lot of services available to them and there is not a lot to do, but they love their community. TV and technology access is a very important part of their lives. Imagine how they feel when the TV reception suddenly disappears in the middle of an exciting cricket match, a football game, the news or, dare I say it, Q&Amaybe that would be a good time for me for it to go down, but that is another matter. That is just not acceptable and there is a lot of work to be done.

Whereas in the past poor television reception resulted in a grainy or fuzzy picture, which was frustrating enough, now with digital television it is all or nothing. Poor reception results turn immediately into no reception results at all. It is all right for me to chuckle out the side of my mouth—I do not experience that in the suburban area where I live; that does not happen to me on a frequent basis. It is so frustrating for them. It happens regularly.

I have written to the major television stations—I had only one courteous response; the others did not even respond—asking them: one, to explain what is going on; two, what the solutions are; and, three, what they are prepared to do about it. Some of my colleagues have already mentioned this. I say to them today publicly in the privileged place that this is that they have a responsibility. Businesses are saying to me in chambers of commerce that this is a bit rich—'The television station salesmen come and sell me packages of adverts on the pretence the ad for my products is going throughout my region, reaching every nook and cranny, down to the West Coast and onto King Island.' They do not get a reduction in their bill when it is found that for a day and a half there was probably only 20 per cent reception in the mining towns on the West Coast.

They have an obligation. They are taking revenue. They provide a great service—do not get me wrong; do not mishear me—but they do have an obligation if they are taking money for advertising from businesses to advertise in every nook and cranny of my electorate to make sure that that ad reaches the people that it has been paid to. I call on them today to find solutions. There are solutions. There must be a solution in this explosion of technology that I spoke about. I know it is relay upon relay upon relay—I get all that—but you cannot tell me that there is not a way to get a better result.

According to Southern Cross Austereo, who did take the time to respond to me, the signal is beamed from Launceston to Devonport, relayed from Devonport to Burnie, relayed from Burnie to Waratah, relayed from Waratah to Rosebery and, finally, relayed from Rosebery to Queenstown and Strahan. The signal is getting weaker and weaker as it goes along. We have to get it fixed. I call on the television stations to do the right thing. I am happy to work with them to communicate with the community about that. While the West Coast of Tasmania is struggling, it is not just there; there are other patchy places in the electorate. It is really important that we get this matter fixed.

What an exciting world we live in! Advances in technology are giving us access to magnificent options to reach family and friends around the world and to do business around the world. This bill is to pull away the regulations that are so out of date it is not funny. I commend the minister and I commend the bill.

See this speech in context