Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support this report of the Standing Committee on Communications, Information Technology and the Arts into the uptake of digital television in Australia, Digital television: who’s buying it? It is a unanimous report, I am pleased to say, into this extremely vital area. I am very pleased to be able to do this today, the first day of this new, improved process for committee members that will allow members of the House far greater input into these important processes of the House. I will try not to be disorderly, Mr Deputy Speaker, in case I am the first person removed from the Committee. It might be difficult; it is a very contentious issue that we are discussing today.

The government discussed the roll-out process for digital television, the change from analog to digital, back in 1998 when it legislated a time frame for the industry to convert from analog to digital. It required that commercial and free-to-air broadcasters commence digital broadcasting on 1 January 2001 in capital cities and in regional areas between then and January 2004. The stations were required to broadcast in both analog and digital for around eight years until the analog signal was switched off at the end of 2008 in capital cities and eight years after the digital switch on in regional markets, effectively making the switch-off in regional areas about four years later. The stations had to broadcast a minimum of 1,040 transmission hours per annum of HDTV—high-definition TV—and restrictions were put in place as to what they could do with the digital spectrum. For example, there was no multichannelling except for the ABC and SBS, which could provide one digital channel but were excluded from showing news, current events and sport.

It is now 2006, some five years in from the original eight-year plan, and the take-up has been slow. There have been several reasons given for the slow take-up and it is appropriate to say that some of that is simply due to technical issues in the early days. There was no digital consumer equipment available in the Australian market on 1 January 2001; so, while it was a necessity for stations to start broadcasting, it was very difficult for consumers to receive the signal. The first digital set-top boxes were underwritten by the commercial broadcasters and arrived in early 2001. In accordance with the roll-out schedule, initial coverage was limited and most areas of metropolitan markets could not receive the signal until late 2003. This meant that a digital set-top box might work in one part of a market and not in another. There has also been considerable talk of the difficulty with additional content. The Seven Network, for example, claimed that the primary reason for the low take-up of DTV in Australia was the lack of a clear value proposition for consumers as the content on the digital channels was very much the same as that on the analog channels.

The Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance and the Australian Film Commission both talked of the need for content to drive take-up. The Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance in particular remarked that, given that Australians have long been known as very fast adopters of new technology, the fact that take-up of digital services has been so slow indicates that what is on offer—enhanced picture and sound quality—is nowhere near sufficiently attractive to drive the decision to acquire a set-top box. The Australian Consumers Association argued that there was not an attractive proposition to motivate consumers. There was a paucity of receivers, the equipment was difficult to understand and there was very little consumer understanding of the technology.

No doubt the technology is now available. In fact, over 80 per cent of houses receive all digital channels and 95 per cent of houses receive at least one, yet take-up is still slow. In fact, less than 10 per cent of houses have transferred from analog to digital, five years into the proposed changeover period, given that in most of those houses where there is a digital television there is an old analog television sitting in the back bedroom. Again, considering that the proposed switch-off is at the end of 2008—less than three years away—only around five per cent of Australian televisions have been made digital-ready.

Nevertheless, we must understand that there is a great need for Australia to keep pace with changing technology in the television market, even if Australian consumers at this point seem to be a little slow on the uptake. Australia is a great innovator of product. We have a strong creative group of producers in this country who produce excellent film and television for around the world. It is important for them, if not for consumers, that we keep pace with change around the world.

In the United States at the moment, for example, 70 per cent of their free-to-air content is high definition television. Australia simply cannot keep pace as a user or provider of international content unless we take very serious action. Of course, television is not just a business of entertainment either. Now, along with radio and print media, it is a vital part of the way that the community shares information—what we know about ourselves and our common everyday stories—with each other. This puts television into another sphere of cultural significance. That does not mean that any particular station needs to fulfil the entire community role, but we in government need to ensure that there is a range of suppliers of information and, more importantly, that there is diversity in the kind of information provided. We also support, as I said before, a very strong film and television industry. Most people do not realise that it is the television industry that financially supports the film industry for much of its life.

To some extent we found ourselves in the committee making policy on the run. Changes to cross-media ownership have been in the ether. There have been rumours about decisions to be brought down very soon, about changes to the digital television rules in regional Australia and, even as we were meeting with industry representatives, talk by the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts of coming to a decision prior to the conclusions of this committee. So it was somewhat difficult in a time of uncertainty to consider these important issues. Certainty is of course extremely important to the industry itself and to consumers. We also had to consider regional areas very carefully. Regional companies are already claiming that the simulcast of digital and analog is putting an extraordinary drain on their services. Whilst the large free-to-air companies in the cities are comfortable to some extent with simulcast, the regional companies are doing it very tough, and we were reluctant to add to their burden by delaying the switch-off any further.

The committee  made a number of recommendations that free up the environment for broadcasters and provide some certainty for both industry and consumers. The first part concerns the switch-off date, setting a very firm switch-off date of 1 January 2010, a bit over a year later than the original date. Several submissions to the inquiry stated that a definite analog switch-off date will drive the take-up of digital television in Australia. Certainly, we found that many consumers were unaware of this and that there is a need for the industry to widely promote the definite switch-off date. SBS believes, for example, that increased public awareness of a certain analog switch-off date will provide a particular incentive for digital take-up. Several consumers mentioned in their submission that they were waiting for new technology or for a later date—they were waiting till the last minute— before making a decision. The fixed date of 2010 and the second recommendation which follows it, which suggests that the government commission an independent study into Australia’s current spectrum allocation, sets the boundaries well and truly for the industry as well and makes it really clear that the additional spectrum which the free-to-air providers are carrying at the moment for the simulcast will be removed at the switch-off date of January 2010.

There are also several recommendations concerning content and quality. We were particularly pleased that we had a unanimous decision to remove the genre restrictions from the ABC and SBS. On this side of the House we believe that the ABC and SBS have an extremely important role to play in the development of new content and the development of the new format for digital television itself. Current funding does not really allow them to pursue that role with the strength that I know they wish to. But removing the genre restrictions from their second channel, their digital channel, which will allow them much broader broadcasting of content, goes a small way towards that.

This is an extremely complex report. There are 12 recommendations in all, most of which provide the free-to-air broadcasters with considerable flexibility in the way they approach the changeover. (Time expired)

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise in support of the report of the Standing Committee on Communications, Information Technology and the Arts entitled Digital television: who’s buying it? This is a very important report about a very important issue—that is, how Australia is to embrace this new technology. I have to confess that before I became a member of the committee and participated in this inquiry I knew very little about digital TV. I certainly knew very little about its interactive power and the potential that this technology has. I am very pleased to speak on this report today. A lot of hard work has gone into it. Around the world digital television is already revolutionising the way in which people handle their media. Viewers are taking far greater control over what they view and how they view it. Modern television users are interacting with their programs, demanding a high level of choice and content in using more media systems simultaneously.

This detailed report, resulting from our inquiry, asks the very important question about how we can best take advantage of the new digital technology in Australia. The broad conclusion of the report is that it is now time for us to get serious about getting digital. Digital television offers clearer, sharper pictures in a widescreen format. It requires less spectrum to broadcast and it also offers opportunities for more channels and additional features such as interactivity and datacasting. Australia is already using digital technology in broadcasting, although only a small number of Australians are actually equipped to view it. This is despite the fact that we have a scheduled switch-off of analog services commencing in some metropolitan areas as early as 2008. Australian broadcasting is changing rapidly and the successful media companies in this context will be those that realise that our viewers want to consume their media in different ways rather than the traditional way of the family gathered around the TV box watching limited scheduled programming.

Extensive research has been conducted by the committee into where Australia is placed right now with digital TV, where we would like to be in the future and how we can make the transition from the analog system as simple and as attractive an opportunity for all Australians. The inquiry also gives us an expert account of Australia’s options and how we can keep pace with international production and broadcasting trends by talking to the major players within the industry, including the ABC, the Australian Film Commission, the Community Broadcasting Association of Australia et cetera.

The inquiry also investigated the impact of the digital TV handover in the UK, the US, Italy and Germany, involving such organisations as the BBC and the US Federal Communications Commission. Public hearings were conducted around the country, and they were important as they provided us with an insight into what needs to be done to increase public awareness of the impending analog switch-off and what needs to be done to stimulate consumer interest in the uptake of digital television.

The committee also compiled submissions from the relevant Australian government ministers, state and territory governments, and local councils from around the country. Considering the take-up rate, it is important for us to ask who is actually buying digital television. The answer is that few Australians have actually been getting on board and, therefore, this low market base has limited the features and programming options that digital television can provide. I am not sure if you aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, but if you were to purchase a set-top box and a digital television now you will find that the various stations have a number of different programs but that they are essentially broadcasting exactly the same thing. This, of course, has limited the appeal of digital television.

The committee has recommended that the Australian government switch off the analog network nationwide on 1 January 2010. Our researchers found that digital TV roll-out is well advanced and includes the major regional broadcasters. It will actually be rolled out ahead of schedule. It is also believed that a definite switch-off date will be enough to stimulate product and retail readiness and allow people access to digital television information to help them make an easy and informed choice. A nationwide switch-off will help ensure competitive pricing, which will benefit Australian families. We are already seeing the market’s competitive pricing driving the cost of set-top boxes down to about $100, and I expect that as demand increases the cost of those set-top boxes will decrease even further.

The target of 2010 provides an adequate time for broadcasters, manufacturers and retailers to plan appropriately. Whilst this date extends the scheduled switch-off in some metropolitan areas by up to two years, this does not pose extended financial burdens on regional broadcasters to continue simulcasting for a prolonged period. The committee has also recommended that allocation and management with the broadcasting spectrum be the subject of an independent study in order to meet the future technology needs of Australia. I think that is particularly important given the rapid pace at which technology continues to change. An independent inquiry can incorporate the question of additional networks, including community broadcasting stations offering a range of programming which could be aimed at specific ethnic groups or specific community groups. The spectrum needs of future technologies, in particular wireless and other emerging technologies, also needs to be taken into account. Higher quality images and sounds, and even more channels, can be broadcast in the same spectrum now used for one analog channel. The Australian Communications and Media Authority states that spectrum is described in economic terms as being a finite, instantly renewable natural resource. When the analog channel is switched off, a substantial amount of spectrum will be returned to the Australian government for future use—and that obviously contains enormous potential for the Australian government to increase the number of choices that are available to Australian consumers. The committee has also recommended that the Australian government remove the programming restrictions on multichannelling the national free-to-air networks as soon as possible and hopefully no later than 1 January 2007.

Research shows that, although there is a commitment to the subscription television sector regarding multichannelling restrictions on commercial broadcasts until 2008, a variety of content and services, such as that which multichannelling can offer, is critical to driving the demand for digital TV. Multichannelling restrictions on the ABC and on SBS have been recommended to be lifted as soon as possible and no later than the beginning of next year. This will free up both networks to establish digital channels and fully compete in a digital TV market: for example, by being able to open up most of the archived ABC and SBS material for viewers. It is a move that will assist in attracting Australian families into making the transition to digital TV before the analog switch-off.

Datacasting is another variation on what can be provided by digital TV and is an example of where, with careful research and investigation, the Australian community will be able to get the most out of digital television. The committee has recommended a review of the current datacasting restrictions to open the way for potential new services. Datacasting is the broadcasting of data over a wide area via radio waves. It most often refers to additional information sent by television stations along with digital TV, such as news, weather, traffic and stock market reports and so on. In lay terms, for those who have watched CNN, it is best illustrated by the tickers moving along the bottom of news broadcasts—it works in a very similar fashion to that.

In its submission to the inquiry, the ACT government stated that such new datacasting services could also include a range of government based information and services, business information and more. Once you turn your mind to it, the possibilities for datacasting really are endless. The Interactive Television Research Institute, based in my home town of Perth, followed this up by saying that, in their opinion, if restrictions on it were relaxed there were exciting possibilities with datacasting. Certainly, the committee’s visit to that institution really opened our eyes to the sorts of services that digital television is capable of. A lot of hard work has gone into this report, and I commend it wholeheartedly to the House.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was 1957 that television was first introduced in this country. The reruns show Bruce Gyngell hosting the initial broadcast. Unlike many on the committee, Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins, possibly including you, I actually do remember TV at its earliest stage. As a young boy I remember sitting outside the HMV shop waiting for my first sight of Disneyland and seeing Annette Funicello on the Mickey Mouse Club. All these things for a boy living in Dulwich Hill in Sydney were absolutely amazing. Television, when it first came, was very much a luxury item. It was something that we living in a working-class suburb could only go to the shop to see. A lot of the kids growing up in that suburb spent a lot of time at that shop. It might have been a forerunner for childminding centres; I am not quite sure. Quite frankly, we grew up thinking that television was for rich kids.

But, over time, obviously TV became something else. TV has become integral to modern communications. It is part of what keeps people in touch in local communities, and regional communities in particular, and has augmented radio services and provided international news et cetera. Since its introduction, TV has lost its mantle of being a luxury item to the point where most people consider it reasonably essential in the modern family. No longer an item which is simply there for entertainment, it is now essential to modern communication and meeting the demands of a pretty diverse community, enhanced when we moved to broaden that diversity with the establishment of the SBS.

Television as we know it really has brought the world to our living room. I think against that backdrop we are now entering into a new era of television. This is a significant change. When television changed from black and white to colour that, if anything, simply enhanced the image and perhaps the enjoyability of watching golf, cricket and a few other things I tend to watch. But, in terms of making a fundamental change to the delivery pattern of television, digital television has certainly established a new platform for delivery. Digital television will provide not only an enhanced communication medium, pristine imaging, CD quality sound and the prospect of further enhanced contact but also something we would have only dreamed of years ago: the prospect of interactive participation in programming. These changes are so monumental that they are certainly more significant than when we moved from black and white to colour.

The Standing Committee on Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, in its efforts to discharge its responsibility and report on its terms of reference, worked particularly well. It had something like 97 separate submissions, 11 public hearings and 46 different witnesses. As a consequence, we produced 12 unanimous recommendations in our report Digital television: who’s buying it?  Being a relatively new member of this parliament, I am not quite sure how many times you get reports of such magnitude with the committee arriving at 12 unanimous recommendations, but that is what occurred on this occasion. I think the goodwill that operated in this committee applied itself in a way that was good not only for those in the radio and television community that appeared before it but also for the consumers of television. It was good that we could have an objective view of what was being put before us by largely competing forces.

There are two recommendations I would particularly like to rely on, as my friend has ably covered others in his report, which I listened to. I would like to comment on the content and quality aspects and particularly recommendation 3, which applies to our national broadcasters—the ABC and SBS. To date, both of those are subject to genre restrictions. There is a prohibition imposed under the Broadcasting Services Act as to what the ABC and SBS can transmit on their two multichannel stations—for instance, ABC2. This is not an argument as to whether there should be separate radio stations for the ABC; they have already clearly established them. Our recommendation went to freeing them from the restriction prohibiting them from carrying certain content on ABC2 and the second SBS station.

The reason for that was not necessarily simply to argue a case in relation to the ABC, because, I dare say, they are adequately equipped for negotiating with the government on that on their own behalf. But it seemed to us as a committee that denying content to those public broadcasters with access to a multichannelled facility is doing nothing to drive the take-up of digital television. Hence, it was a unanimous recommendation of the committee that it should be freed up. Quite frankly, if anything, those second stations should be seen as an attraction of what digital television offers and as assisting the take-up rate of digital television in this country.

The consequence of not doing so is this. It simply means that we prevent the ABC from utilising much of its existing archival material or from time-shifting material from the main station. We prevent the ABC from exploiting its strengths, particularly in relation to current affairs and news. Restriction of the scope for multichannelling also undermines the benefits to audiences of digital television: namely, the provision of greater choice through diversity of programs and services. Our recommendation is that that should be freed up no later than 1 January next year and that its freeing up should be at least considered, in light of our recommendations, as soon as possible.

Having said that, I think it is incumbent on me to say that, if we are going to free that up with a view to acting positively to attract a television audience to a multichannel station, it is necessary that there should be not only a lifting of genre restrictions but also adequate funding put in place to ensure that our national broadcasters can fully exploit the potential of digital television technology in terms of innovative programming and interactive services. We are aware that the ABC’s and the SBS’s triennial funding is coming up for review, and we would strongly urge the government to take this into account when setting the broadcasters’ budget for the next three-year period. As the report indicates, the position of digital television is very strong in this country but we must do more to enhance its pick-up rate. (Time expired)

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Reconciliation and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on this historic occasion of the standing orders having been amended to allow committee members to speak on or note reports to which they have been a party. I endorse the comments of my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Communications, Information Technology and the Arts who have spoken previously on the committee’s report on digital television, especially those of the member for Parramatta and the member for Werriwa. The history to our inquiry into the uptake of digital TV in Australia and to the report that ensued as a result of that inquiry was the decision taken by the government to announce a changeover date from analog to digital in Australia. The date that they chose was an unrealistic one and, amongst other things, presented some political problems for the government. Additionally, it presented some problems of certainty and planning for both broadcasters and the providers of the technical material that is necessary for you to purchase if you actually want to receive digital images—so it was an important issue.

The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts is on the public record as saying recently that she thinks the switch-off time might be appropriate for about 2011. Our committee has recommended that in fact it should be sooner than that and that the date should be 1 January 2010. There is a clear view amongst committee members that there will be sufficient momentum within the marketplace when there is clarity about a switch-off date to enable the transmission requirements that are necessary to be in place. More importantly, seeing that particularly in regional areas we have double transmissions—digital and analog—people will have an opportunity to plan the purchasing of their television equipment—the set-top box equipment and so on—and the cost itself, the impost on people, should be fairly minor. It is important that the review that we have completed feed in to the consideration that the government is giving to media policy. The minister is due to release a discussion paper on media reforms. We would urge the government, particularly the minister, to take notice of the recommendations of the committee as to the switch-over to digital. In the past media discussion has been quoted as being around the government making a decision which would be a series of trade-offs and compromises, but at the very least removing the content restrictions on our national broadcasters is a key first step.

After all, there has been a significant public investment, through the government, to the ABC of about $1 billion in order for there to be digital provision from the ABC and the SBS. One of the views the committee had was that it is time Australian consumers get value for money for that investment in digital broadcasting. As a consequence, recommendation 3—that the Australian government remove the programming restrictions on multichannelling for national free-to-air networks as soon as possible and no later than 1 January 2007—marks some departure from where policy has been at this point, given that this is a unanimous committee report. Hopefully the government will heed that specific recommendation, as well as the others within this report.

The committee set itself an ambitious objective in terms of a turn-off date for analog. The most important feature about setting that date is that we will need additional content to encourage people to take up, as it were, that opportunity to look at digital images and content on their TV. Where are they going to find it? For most people, the major place that they will find it will be from those who are able to provide it. It is very clear that the ABC and SBS have the capacity to provide it and they should be given that opportunity. Up to this point, as members know, there have been genre restrictions on what the ABC and the SBS can produce and it is very clear that those genre restrictions, in time, ought to be lifted. That is clearly going to play a critical role in driving digital take-up. That is what happened in the United Kingdom and there was certainly evidence before the committee to that effect. I have to say that in the United Kingdom additional government support by way of a framework and financial measures has been given to stimulate production of content, including by independent producers.

Producing content becomes probably and arguably the most important feature in this debate because unless we have a framework and a capacity, particularly from our national broadcasters, to produce additional digital content, then the service to the community by way of the diversity available to them in the broadcasting arena is significantly impaired. So it is particularly important, when we talk about lifting genre restrictions, that there is, for example, adequate funding of the national broadcaster to enable it to take up the challenge to provide for that additional content.

Before I complete my remarks, I want to mention the great need that derives out of the committee’s recommendations for the national broadcaster to be suitably and substantially supported in this task. With some regret, I note that locally produced drama hours on the ABC have dropped from 100 hours in 2001 to just 20 hours last year—a very substantial drop, as I know you would appreciate, Mr Deputy Speaker. Of that, high-quality long-form drama is probably only three or four hours. This is a scandalous situation for us as media consumers and for the broadcaster to face. One of the reasons it faces that problem is that it has been starved of funds by the Howard government. Additionally a great deal of its existing funding in its funding model was to put money into its digital networks. Clearly one way around this imbroglio is for the genre restrictions, as we are recommending, to be lifted.

The other points I wish to make about the committee’s report go to a couple of things which I think are of some importance. One of them is the necessity for us to have adequate technical information in deciding the way in which the digital signals are going to operate through the spectrum. I will not confuse members present or Hansard by going into the technical aspects of how the broadcast of digital works, but it is clear when talking about selling digital that recommendation 9—‘that the Australian government ensure that the One Watt initiative and the MEPS standard are fully operational by analogue switch-off at 1 January 2010’—and recommendation 10—‘that the government work with industry stakeholders to establish a testing and conformance centre for digital television equipment; and provide $A1 million as seed funding in the first year for the establishment of a testing and conformance centre’—make a great deal of sense.

It was clear from the evidence that came to the committee that there are a number of possible technical standards that can apply to the broadcast of digital. Just as we have had numerous Australian examples—and I am sure it would have been said many times both in this forum and in the House about rail gauges that meet and different widths at different state borders—very much the same kind of debate, I have to advise members present, is now under way in the digital domain. It refers to slightly more technical matters, but the genesis of the debate is somewhat similar. We need to have uniform application of a standard that can run across the networks and across the country, and we need to have a testing and conformance centre for the television equipment to enable that to happen.

We additionally recommended in recommendation 11 that the government ‘coordinate the establishment of a mandatory labelling scheme that will accurately identify television and digital reception products’. There was some argument and evidence to the committee that you did not need a scheme of this sort. Some argued that the market itself would sort it out; it was in the interests of retailers to make sure that people were adequately informed of the technical nature or otherwise of the difference, say, between standard definition and high definition and even the difference between digital and analog, which for some people is still somewhat of a mystery. But I do not think we can leave it to the market in this sense and the idea that there should be mandatory labelling makes particularly good sense.

Of the other recommendations that I have time to refer to, the recommendation that the government remove all restrictions on multichannelling for commercial free-to-air networks on 1 January 2007 provides it with the necessary impetus to know with certainty what the regulations will be for digital broadcasts. My very strong hope is that the government will look very closely at the recommendations that have been made by this committee, on which it has been a pleasure to serve, and that we will have additional Australian content on both the free-to-air and national broadcasters.

Ken Ticehurst (Dobell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the report of the Standing Committee on Communications, Information Technology and the Arts entitled Digital television: who’s buying it? Better digital pictures are possible. Better television and better sound can be provided by digital broadcasts. There has been a very slow take-up of digital TV in Australia, but most of that is due to consumers not really being aware of the benefits of this technology. We have seen an increased take-up in recent times, but it still only amounts to about 12 per cent of consumers. Digital TV can be obtained on the old analog TVs. Many people have these sets which, in some cases, are 10 to 15 years old. The old sets will not be replaced. By using either a standard definition or a high definition set-top box, the old TVs can continue to be used. Also, the productions of most of the television networks in Australia are almost exclusively in high definition. It needs to be encouraged to continue. Australia represents less than five per cent of the world’s market. We are in a global economy and there is no way in the world that we will set any standards here in Australia.

The committee visited the sole manufacturer of TVs in Australia. I have read recently that it will cease production very soon. So we will be relying on imported technology. Essentially, the standards for high definition will be determined by countries other than Australia. This, of course, is nothing new. We had the same with FM and AM broadcasts. There was a bit of tinkering around the edges with frequency bands. In television, we had two analog systems. We selected the European system—the PAL-B system. America is still operating on an inferior system called NTSC. Hopefully, we will still have a converging of the standards for high definition so that we in this country have the same as in the majority of the world. This will lead, of course, to cheaper sets. We also now have a variety of set-top boxes. We can buy them for $70 to $80 up to several hundred dollars. High definition boxes were $1,000 this time last year. Now you can buy them for, in some cases, 300 bucks. We can buy the boxes with hard disks built into them. So instead of having a digital recorder—the VCR as we know it—we can now have a set-top box and a personal video recorder in one device.

Also, just around the corner is wireless networking built into a set-top box. This will enable you to link your wireless home network from your computer through to the TV, allowing you to pick up programs or other forms of content over broadband internet and play it on your PC through the wireless network onto the larger screen. For that reason, during committee hearings I was adamant that we do not need to mandate digital tuners in TVs, because the standard will change. We are now using what is called an MPEG2, which is a standard for graphics. The computer manufacturers are already looking at MPEG4, and another standard called MPEG6 is being introduced. As the definition of these new video standards emanate, we will find that more and more signal can be compressed into the tight bandwidth that is allocated. Essentially, with what we have today, in a few years we will be able to put two or three channels down the same bandwidth. These developments, like computers, are travelling at a rapid rate. It is also now possible to have TV tuners in computers. You can even buy an add-on box, where you plug a TV antenna into the USB port in your computer, and there is digital TV. Some of these boxes will be able to handle analog as well.

Unfortunately, most people do not understand the benefits of digital. Really, it is not for the government to explain it to people; it is up to the suppliers, the manufacturers and the entertainment industry. It is in their interests to convince people to move to the new standard. Of course, the government does take some responsibility for that move, and that is why we have the cut-off date for analog of 2010. It was obvious that the initial date of 2008 would not be realistically achievable, but 2010 should be able to be attained.

We find now that much of the change is being pushed across by large screen TVs. If we go back a few years, a plasma screen TV was retailing for about $30,000. Since the introduction of the GST, the 32 per cent wholesale tax on those screens—and all entertainment gear, for that matter—has been abolished and we are only paying 10 per cent GST on them. This has led to more take-up of the large screens. We have also seen developments in LCD screens. They used to be restricted to small computers; now you can buy large screens of 40 inches and more. Another technology has been developed called DLP. It is not the Democratic Labour Party we know from the fifties and sixties; it is a system called digital light processing. It is a new way of producing very lightweight, large-screen sets and is quite interesting—in fact, I have one myself. They give a brilliant picture and the colour switching is done in electronic circuitry. You get a large picture which is very much lighter than either plasma or the old cathode ray tube.

We are also looking at other forms of digital. The technology of the digital signal is really moving through not only our whole industry but also our mobile phone network. With the new 3G networks it is possible to receive video on mobile phones. As Telstra’s new installation moves along and gets developed further, we will have really high bandwidth available on mobile phones, which will enable you to watch video and movies. Further, with video on demand you will be able to download video signals over your computer, play them back on your large-screen TV and listen to wonderful sound on a home theatre network. Then, of course, there is podcasting, which is the latest way to bring down digital signals. Some time ago there was a song called Video Killed the Radio Star. Now we find that the radio stations, particularly 2GB in Sydney, are producing a podcast of their signal but will also do it in video: you will be able to download the announcer doing a program and watch it on video along with the audio. Then, of course, we have wireless internet and satellite internet. So there are many ways to deliver a signal, and it will not just be free to air.

Also, as the member for Kingsford Smith mentioned, content is the king. It was extra content that drove the uptake in the UK. It is not really being left to the ABC to produce all this content. We have very adequate capabilities in our TV networks and also in our other producers who are producing movies in this country. We need to encourage those producers to lift the availability of digital product. Also, we have datacasting. Datacasting was a means of transmitting signals over the TV network. This was largely misinterpreted in many cases but, in February 1993, I was doing some digital datacasting with the Seven Network and that still continues today. Very small low-bandwidth signals were able to be incorporated into the TV signal and, in my case, produce lightning data. Financial information is available. The RTA uses it for conveying road and traffic information to control centres. Datacasting is not just about taking movies or videos and having an alternative to pay TV. There are many other applications where data can be transmitted through TV media for all sorts of applications.

We also heard about an idea of having relevant standards and testing. We have Australian standards. Australian standards provide guidelines and rules for connecting equipment to our electrical mains. Very stringent requirements already exist. We have standards for production of video. I mentioned the MPEG system, which is internationally recognised. It is primarily driven out of America, but it is a common standard in the PC industry. That is the sort of standard that should be adopted in digital TV. As I mentioned earlier, the whole digital circuits and systems are integrated from PCs to podcasts, mobile phones and TVs. It is a digital future and we need to get behind it.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I had occasion in 2000 to speak on relevant legislation: the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Digital Television and Datacasting) Bill 2000 and the Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Amendment Bill 2000. At that time I pointed to the folly of parliament seeking to anticipate the pace of technological development in this area and, indeed, in any other area in a modern economy and society. I pointed to the folly of a parliament then regulating, according to its expectations, as to how technology would develop and how consumers would respond to that technology. It seems to me that very often parliamentarians overanticipate and overregulate. They think that they are smarter than the people in the community who make decisions about whether products are attractive. They also feel that they are smart enough to forecast changes in technology. It is on that basis that much of Australia’s media and broadcasting legislation has been developed over the last couple of decades.

When I was speaking on this legislation in 2000, I referred to the main decisions that were contained in it. The first decision was that free-to-air broadcasters will be required to continue their existing analog broadcast for at least eight years. The second decision was that free-to-air broadcasters will be required to provide a standard definition digital television signal at all times. The third decision was that free-to-air broadcasters must provide a high-definition digital broadcast for at least 20 hours a week. The fourth decision was that datacasting will be subject to restrictions to ensure it is different from current television services. The fifth decision was that free-to-air broadcasters will be allowed to provide digital enhancements to their main simulcast programs, provided they do not amount to a separate multichannelling program. I think you will see immediately what I mean about overprescriptive legislation.

The datacasting regime provided for in the 2000 bill was designed to ensure that datacasters cannot offer a de facto broadcasting service in competition with free-to-air providers—that is, the datacasting provisions were designed to avoid the possibility of another broadcasting service coming in through the backdoor. Because of the government’s concern to protect the position of free-to-air commercial broadcasters, the government developed very restrictive boundaries for datacasting. They are quite astonishing. For example, datacasters are able to provide a moving video program of any length on an individual news, financial market and business information or weather item, as long as the program is only available to a viewer selecting from a menu on the screen, that it is not hosted by a presenter and that it is not linked to another item. Datacasters are prevented from showing most genres of television programs, including drama, current affairs, sporting programs and events, music programs, entertainment and lifestyle programs, comedy, documentaries, reality television programs, children’s programs, light entertainment—I think heavy entertainment was allowed—and variety programs, compilation programs, quiz programs and game shows. It is absurd that legislation was passed in the parliament in 2000 that was so heavily prescriptive.

It is against that background that I would like to say that this committee’s report entitled Digital television: who’s buying it? is a breath of fresh air. I do not say that I would necessarily agree with all of it, nor most humbly would I assert that I was as well versed in these issues as the members of the committee who sat long and hard during the inquiry process. But the flavour of the recommendations is a very welcome one and it does encourage people like me to think that perhaps progress is being made.

There are a number of positive recommendations. For example, the committee recommends that the Australian government remove the programming restrictions on multichannelling for national free-to-air networks as soon as possible and no later than the beginning of 2007. So here is a recommendation to remove restrictions with that basic deregulatory disposition that I articulated earlier in my remarks. Of course, I would be well inclined to support such a recommendation. There is another one. The committee recommends that the Australian government remove all restrictions on multichannelling for commercial free-to-air networks on 1 January 2008. Again, that is a recommendation to remove restrictions.

We then go the other way in recommendation 6 where the committee recommends that the government maintain the current minimum high definition broadcasting quota for free-to-air networks until 1 January 2011. In this instance the committee is saying that a quota or a prescription be maintained until 2011, so I become a little more concerned about such restrictions. In recommendation 7 the committee recommends that prior to 1 January 2007 the Australian government undertake a review to determine whether current high definition quotas for free-to-air networks should be removed, increased or decreased. So here the committee is not making a call but at least it is opening up one possibility, and that is that these quotas be removed.

Another relevant recommendation by the committee is that the Australian government reconsider current restrictions on datacasting with a view to lifting restrictions on 1 January 2008. That is consistent with what I was saying back in 2000—that legislation developed by the government in relation to datacasting and high definition television seems overly prescriptive. I understand the fact that free-to-air television providers have made large investments in their channels and therefore deserve some sort of security in relation to the arrangements for the future. But I am not sure that it follows that free-to-air television providers be fully protected against competition, whether it comes through datacasting or through other channels. We are in the 21st century and there is a variety of ways in which information is communicated. Young people in particular are accessing the increased variety of ways that information is communicated. I think we need to be very careful about locking in for very long periods a legislative framework that protects free-to-air television providers effectively from competition from these other forms. I understand and accept the philosophy that they need some certainty, having committed large sums within a regulatory framework, and that that regulatory framework should not change unpredictably in ways that make those investments highly risky, because in the future those investments might not occur.

I fully accept that, but that does not mean that the Australian parliament should always seek to protect traditional forms of television and communication from other more innovative high-technology forms of television, datacasting and communication. The philosophy that I think should be followed by the Australian parliament is not to overly prescribe in regulations that we develop in this area. I very strongly urge fellow parliamentarians: do not try to predict the nature and pace of technological change in this area. We are not equipped to do that, and establishing regulations around the anticipation that there will be a certain percentage take-up of high-definition television is pure folly.

I finish where I started: by saying—confessing openly—I am not an expert in this area. I think the committee has done a good job. I congratulate the chairperson, the member for Lindsay, for doing a good job and I congratulate the other members of the committee. It does seem to me that these recommendations constitute progress, but let us not get too heavily bogged down in over-regulating this industry in the future.

Jackie Kelly (Lindsay, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I would like to echo the member for Rankin’s thoughts on congratulating the members of the Standing Committee on Communications, Information Technology and the Arts: Julie Owens, the member for Parramatta; Bronwyn Bishop, the member for Mackellar; Alan Griffin; Michael Johnson; Andrew Laming; John Murphy; Peter Garrett; Chris Hayes; Michael Keenan; and Ken Ticehurst. We had a lot of travel together and companionship in preparing the report Digital television: who’s buying it? and I would like to thank them for the academic work as well as for the good times. I would also like to thank the committee secretariat. I think often we get carried away with the membership of our committees, but a lot of the work in terms of organisation and the presentation of witnesses is done by the committee secretary, Dr Anna Dacre; the inquiry secretary, Mr Anthony Overs; and our administrative officer, Mrs Emma Martin. I extend my thanks to them as, unfortunately, I was unable to when I tabled the report, because I ran out of time in the main chamber. So I would like to put that on the record now.

We received 97 submissions, so the other people I would like to thank are, obviously, everyone involved in preparing those submissions for the committee. We also had a number of days of hearings and a number of people come and speak to us personally. In particular, I would like to thank Paul Jenkins, the General Manager, Marketing and Martin Laverty, Government Counsel, Burson-Marsteller, acting for LG Electronics Australia Pty Ltd. I would also like to thank Ross Henderson, Director of Panasonic AVC Networks Australia, and Digital Media Support Manager, Rick Naylor, as well as Keith Perkins from Retravision. It was very helpful to get a position from manufacturers and retailers, and that certainly influenced this report. I only wish that more retailers and manufacturers had come forward and had their say.

The other significant submission that I thought worthy of mention is that by Mr Gary Lamb, Managing Director of GfK Marketing Services, which has done an in-depth analysis of the digital television market which supplements the one we get from the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. I am currently involved in amendments in the House regarding the aptitude of our bureaucrats. I am sure they do a great job, but it was great having the private sector input from GfK marketing. We also went to Perth and spoke to Professor Duane Varan, the Executive Director of the Interactive Television Research Institute. It is really quite amazing what is possible with digital TV and the interactivity we can have in the future. Some of the demonstrations they gave and some of the research they were doing into people’s viewing habits, how people watch television and how they interact socially was quite amazing.

As I said in my foreword, I remember as a young probation and parole officer—one of my first jobs out of university—visiting the parents of young offenders. You could gauge quite a lot from those visits. One of the immutable facts was the lounge lined up around the television. I recall in one instance the television was even turned on for the entire time I was interviewing the parents—in fact, they were watching television. So I think television has a lot to answer for. Nonetheless, the committee came to the conclusion that television is an essential service. We rate it in terms of poverty. If you do not have access to a colour television, you are basically impoverished in Australia. If you are a landlord in Queensland and your tenant wants pay TV, you are obliged to subscribe to services and install the wiring. Television really is moving towards what is an essential service.

How do you move this forward? How do you move it to the next level of technology? To that end, Debra Richards, the Executive Director of the Australian Subscription Television and Radio Association, ASTRA, gave a wonderful presentation of the marketing campaign done in the subscription sector where in 12 months, using Hugh Jackman in an advertising campaign, they moved 75 per cent of their subscription viewers to digital. There had been a zero take-up but within 12 months of the campaign the take-up was 75 per cent. The only thing they did was have a marketing campaign. The hurdle to get viewers switched on to digital in the subscription sector was much larger. They had to ring up to subscribe, they had to book a time for the person to come out and install the new set-top box, they had to pay more and learn a bunch of new controls whereas the level of entry into the free-to-air digital area is much cheaper—the committee estimates 50 bucks by 2010 or 2011.

With the major television stations looking at loss of audience, I think they will be motivated to do something similar to subscription services in driving campaigns. They know their audience. They did not want to see analog switched off and lose audience share. So they are very keen to get out there and do it. We think that is probably where the drive should lie. It should lie with free-to-air television stations pushing their own barrow and being responsible for their own audience capture.

With the sales and services that the retail market can deliver, to compete they might say, ‘We  will sell you the set-top box and install it for you.’ Also, the consumer will decide whether they want multichannelling or high definition television; hence, we put the restriction on any reduction in the HD quota until after the analog has been switched off so that the market has an opportunity to determine and decide HD characteristics and which way the consumer wants to go in purchasing a set-top box.

Obviously, a HD set-top box is going to be more expensive. If you have gone for that extra expense, you want some sort of stability in that set-top box being future proofed; hence, the requirement for over-the-air downloads by the manufacturers. With the establishment of a testing and conformance centre, these boxes in the Australian market should be able to be updated by the manufacturers for the next broadcasting technology through over-the-air download to the set-top boxes. If there is a standard conformance and testing centre, each manufacturer can make sure that their download is not going to interfere with other people’s boxes. That is an essential part of the move to digital television, building in some consumer future proofing. One of the things we found was that people tend to sit back and wait for the technology to increase and prices to crash before they invest—‘If I don’t have to invest in a set-top box now, why would I? By 2009 when I do have to make a decision, the technology will be much better and I will be getting a bigger bang for my buck.’

If at that stage people want to buy in at the top end of the set-top box market, let us make sure that they are getting some longevity for their purchase, given the rapid changeover in the broadcasting technologies. We are now seeing terrific compression technologies which will allow HD multichannelling into the future. But, for that to proceed, we do not want to be giving the spectrum that government has back to the broadcasters for more simulcasts. We want them to work within their own seven kilohertz of spectrum and not be coming back to government all the time for more spectrum just so that they can maintain audience capture.

The inquiry was a really interesting and thoroughly enjoyable exercise. I might take the opportunity now to finish a few of the comments that I started in the main chamber and did not get a chance to finish. I think I am going to run out of time again, but I congratulate the chair on this procedure. When people have done so much work on a report, it is wonderful to have an opportunity, as we do here, to discuss it and let all the members, not just the chair and the deputy chair, have a say about their contribution and their efforts. I commend this particular practice and hope it continues. Perhaps after the member for Lowe has spoken I might have an opportunity to finish the speech which I wrote for the main chamber.

John Murphy (Lowe, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With great respect to my colleague and friends the member for Lindsay and the member for Hinkler, they are acutely aware of my keen interest in the government’s media policy. My contribution today, for the benefit of the member for Hinkler and the member for Lindsay, is not directed personally at them, because I know their intentions in a very narrow field in relation to the lack of uptake on digital TV are sincere. But I will argue that the government is accountable for that.

I approached the inquiry of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Information, Technology and the Arts into the paltry uptake of digital television in Australia with the naïve hope that the government would come to the long overdue realisation that Australians are sick of the vice-like grip of media fat cats over media policy in our country. The inordinately slow adoption rate of digital television should be of major concern to the government. It is estimated that fewer than 500,000 of Australia’s 7.8 million households—or a feeble penetration rate of five per cent—have adopted digital television. This is compared with figures of around 70 per cent penetration of the United Kingdom market.

There can be absolutely no doubt that this monumental failure to convince Australians to take up digital technology before the scheduled termination of analog transmission in 2008 lies squarely at the feet of the Howard government’s media policy, which continues to sell out our democracy and the public interest to the incumbent media players, as I have been saying in this House for the last five years.

I am disappointed that this inquiry’s background discussion paper continues the government’s tradition of attempting to off-load the responsibility for its failures by attempting to muddy the waters of responsibility. I have not been misled by such ‘key points’ as whether the retail sector has failed to embrace digital television technology or whether the industry can further facilitate the uptake of digital television. Neither have the Australian people.

There are many submissions in the possession of this inquiry which contain a common theme of disenchantment with laws that have clearly been purpose built for this country’s media moguls. I will paraphrase from but a few of such submissions. John White believes Australians are not taking up digital television because people do not perceive any additional benefits such as multichannelling. Steve Ulrich and Paul Macknamara believe that digital television does not offer enough additional programming or content to provide incentive for consumers to upgrade. Erik Fenna questions the value of upgrading to digital television and is rightly sceptical of its benefits. These are the thoughts that are common among many submissions, and they are conclusions that have been confirmed by the report of a study commissioned by the Australian Communications and Media Authority in 2005 titled Digital media in Australian homes.

It is sad that the likes of Erik Fenna should remain sceptical about the inherent value of digital television technology. It is sadder still that such scepticism should exist because of the actions and policies of the Howard government. In my view, the advent of digital television in 2001 should have been a major milestone for the television industry. However, due to the government’s poor handling of its implementation, digital television has become nothing more than a pale imitation of analog transmission.

With the exception of the SBS and the ABC, the government’s Broadcasting Services Act does not allow broadcasters to take full advantage of the technology of digital TV by offering services such as multichannelling and unrestricted datacasting, despite the public’s clear demands for greater diversity in TV programming.

The obvious question must arise: why is the government withholding a superior product from the Australian people by dogmatically grasping its flawed policies on datacasting and multichannelling? Some insight may be sought from the comments by the previous Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston where, inter alia, he said:

… the Government does not want datacasters to be able to provide the same kinds of programs as we already get on television.

Just why it is so abhorrent for datacasters to compete with existing networks has never been clearly articulated by the government. Indeed, the government has often refused to tell the Australian people the real agenda of its policies, which are designed in the main, as I have been saying for the last five years, to benefit Australia’s major media owners—Mr Murdoch and now Mr James Packer—further concentrating media ownership in Australia and doing irreparable damage to the public interest and Australia’s democracy. But I will come to that later.

The former minister’s comments merely scratch the surface. The government’s refusal to allow new entrants into the media industry knows no bounds. What is most problematic about the approach to digital television in Australia is this government’s track record of deviating from a commitment to providing a diverse range of services offering entertainment, education, news and information. It seems more willing to do all it can to further concentrate media ownership in Australia, even if it is at the expense of the future of digital television. That is the view that I sincerely hold. At every juncture of digital TV policy, the government has navigated a dangerous path which seeks to appease entrenched segments of the television and pay television industry, including Messrs Packer and Murdoch. Tell me if I am wrong?

The government has successfully regulated the content that datacasters may broadcast to prevent them from becoming alternative sources of news and information to the mass market through what should have been the digital revolution. In 1998 the government shamefully amended the Broadcasting Services Act to outlaw the allocation of commercial television licences to new entrants, despite the increased spectrum that would conceivably become available through the advent of digital television.

Most galling of all, the government is blindly adopting the Packer and Murdoch doctrine of abolishing cross-media ownership laws. If it were not so damaging to our democracy, it would almost be comical that the government could consider removing cross-media protections before removing the present regulatory barriers to entry, of which I have just spoken. It is unconscionable that new entrants are presently forbidden from acquiring a television licence so as to allow incumbent and more powerful media proprietors the opportunity to challenge for the same licences upon the repeal of cross-media laws.

In his Australia Day address to the National Press Club, the Prime Minister made several exalting references to Australia’s proud democratic traditions: ‘There can be no doubt that a fiercely independent media, strengthened by industry diversity, has contributed to these democratic traditions.’ That is what he said. Why then is the Howard government hell-bent on reducing opportunities provided by digital television to increase the diversity of services, while simultaneously abolishing cross-media ownership laws, and all the while putting more power and influence in the hands of unelected media proprietors?

This government is not interested in the opportunities for digital TV in datacasting, in my view. It is not interested in the opportunities for digital TV in multichanelling. It is not interested in ensuring that there are more rather than fewer media proprietors in Australia. It is seemingly only interested in dispensing threats posed to the two biggest media players. In a report published in 2000, the Productivity Commission reported that the total value of television licences in Australia was $3 billion as at June 1998. They are not in need of protection.

It is time that this government began to represent the Australian people on the issues of digital TV and media diversity, not the media fat cats to whom it appears to be so beholden. If the government is serious about increasing the uptake of digital TV and honouring the laudable objectives of the Broadcasting Services Act, it must recognise that it has failed to capitalise on the many technological advantages of digital television and, as a result, provided little if no incentive for consumers to adopt digital television.

In conclusion, and with great respect to my colleagues opposite, I am sending a message to the government through them—because I know they are sincere members of parliament and look after their electorates—it must take a greater and genuine interest in datacasting, multichannelling and abolishing the restriction of new free-to-air television entrants if it is to overcome its abject failure in stimulating digital television adoption. I do not think there can be a more serious threat to the public interest in our democracy than the agenda of the government concentrating media ownership. Kowtowing to the two biggest players is very un-Australian.

Jackie Kelly (Lindsay, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I thank the member for Lowe for granting me leave to finish a few remarks which might touch on a few of the issues that he has already mentioned. As I was saying, the Standing Committee on Communications, Information Technology and the Arts in its report Digital television: who’s buying it? also recommended that a testing and conformance centre for digital television equipment be established, with the Australian government to provide $1 million in seed funding in the first year. The committee urges the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts to continue to work with industry stakeholders to develop an appropriate model and set of objectives on which a new testing and conformance centre will be based. One of the recommendations is also for the One Watt Initiative to be fully implemented by the switch-off date.

A lot of the set-top boxes that we saw use eight, nine or 10 watts in standby mode. The drain in energy consumption when 15 million analog sets acquire a set-top box, unless we move to the One Watt Initiative for sets in standby mode, is quite big and we would like to see a move incorporating more of the set-top box into DVD and VHS in standby mode. I think that is a real challenge for the Western world with a lot of these adaptations to our TVs and how much power they use in standby mode.

The committee is aware that there is a great deal of confusion amongst consumers concerning digital television. The committee noted that energy-rating and water-rating label schemes are very useful guides for consumers in assessing and analysing different products in the market and that a similar scheme could apply to televisions and digital reception equipment. The report recommends the establishment of a mandatory labelling scheme that will force manufacturers and retailers to accurately identify the capabilities of televisions and digital reception products they sell. So, if as Miss Kelly from the western suburbs of Sydney I come to a retailer to buy a set-top box and I really do not know much about standard definition, high definition, one watt standby mode or what I should be looking for, there will be a little label on the product with ticks in the various effective boxes so that I can at least inquire and say, ‘Why wasn’t the high definition box ticked?’ and seek assurances from the retailer about what I am purchasing.

Finally, the report recommends that a digital black spots program be established to replace the analog black spots program. It is fairly pointless to continue fixing analog black spots when we are moving to digital by 2010 and we really need to be reaching out and fixing digital black spots. The recommendations outlined in the report are designed to promote the uptake of digital television. Internationally, the digital television revolution is already happening. If as a nation Australia is to access the enhancements, television quality and production opportunities that are available elsewhere in the world, then now is the time to buy into the digital television revolution. Again, I thank everyone who was involved in preparing the report and I commend Digital television: who’s buying it? to the House.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the days before communications and transport were separated, I chaired this committee. I recognise, although I also know the member for Lowe has some misgivings about it, that this is a very sensible, measured report. I do not think it plays to any particular media interest. It might play to all of them, in the sense of the free-to-airs, in that they are on a level playing field, and it does not specifically mention a fourth free-to-air, as I understand it. What is sensible about it is that it sets an agenda for the switch-off of analog. It seems to me that 2010 corrects any of the problems that existed following the Democrat amendment to the original switch-off date. It reinstates that and a bit more. I think that is important, because the uptake of digital has not been as good as we might expect. I suppose that is because some people are drawn by the quality of the television presentation—high-definition is certainly a beautiful picture to watch—but, then, a lot of other people are quite happy with a standard definition screen. Some like a wide screen. I have a wide-screen analog. I suppose with a set-top box I will be able to move to digital. In fact, I am looking at the options now.

From a practical point of view, not having been part of the inquiry, I think the committee has picked up on a very important thing. The amount of paraphernalia and claim and counterclaim you get when you go into an electrical or a television sales area is unbelievable, from the $49 set-top box right through to the $500, $600 or $700 box that has a hard drive that can record up to 80 hours and an instant playback facility so that, if you miss the first quarter-hour of Four Corners, it can replay that for you. Then there is the quality of picture. The set-top box will convert digital signals down to analog and the like. You have all these options. To go in and see those options lined up there, you start to get an appreciation of what your set-top box will allow you to do. There are other facilities in it, as I understand it, which will allow you to have various camera angles on the crowd. If the uninitiated go and buy a $49 set-top box and find that the box does not do most of the things they want it to, that will obviously leave a sour taste in some people’s mouths.

As the person who was primarily responsible for the black spots program, I remember going to see the Prime Minister and telling him I had a section in my electorate, between Bundaberg and Gladstone, where 5,000 or 6,000 people, 40 years on from the introduction of television, still did not have access to it. He said to me, ‘Paul, surely that’s not right.’ I explained to him that it was right, and that was the genesis—that and another incident near Gladstone—of the black spots program. In fact, Senator Ian Campbell, when he was the parliamentary secretary for communications, acknowledged that. A green movement tried to stop a black spots tower going up in Agnes Water in my electorate, and it dragged on through the courts for nearly three years. I remember the minister writing to the council, saying it would be an irony if the very shire that got the black spots program for Australia ended up not having one itself. However, that has since been corrected.

Apparently, with a digital signal, if you can pick up a bit of the digital signal you can get a very good picture, whereas with analog, if it is on the margins, you do not generally get a good picture. I expect from that that when we put the new transponders onto the towers, assuming they have the same throw, it will be a good thing. It makes sense that if any black spots are introduced between now and 2010 it will be better to go to digital television transmission.

I have often thought—although this is not covered in the report—that for those on low incomes, pensioners, who are forced into such a situation perhaps there should be some subsidy for the set-top box. Now that the cost is down to around $49 it would not burden the government unduly by having to incur a great deal of expense. I also think it is time that we started using datacasting to its full potential. Back in the early days of datacasting we were so cautious not to have a bunfight or create a mess that later governments would have to unscramble. Perhaps we were a little too conservative in taking the brakes off. The committee have set a target of 2008, which I think makes a lot of sense.

Multichannelling has been a hotly debated issue. I suppose if people are going to use their digital televisions and are going to buy better quality set-top boxes in future they are going to want more than just a pretty picture. I know people who are buying set-top boxes now for no purpose other than to get the additional channels—that is, ABC2, the other SBS channel and some of the special radio networks that are being transmitted through that medium, like the jazz channel and so on. I know people are buying set-top boxes purely for that reason. This indicates that, while people certainly want a better picture, many will be happy with standard definition. I think people will want to move to the widescreen format; they will want to move from the 4.3 to the 9.16 format. It makes a lot of sense to transmit in that format.

I have some ambivalence about not allowing a limited form of subscription. I think the roll-out in Australia of the cable network and the satellite network of pay television was not done as fairly as it might have been. I hope that the government, when reviewing these things in future, will look at multichannelling. I accept the argument that people have invested a lot of money in cable as it exists now and in the satellite transmission of pay TV, but I seriously wonder whether there are not other forms of subscription television. We should not close the door on this forever and a day. Obviously with the coalescence of many technologies there are great opportunities for Australia in digital television in terms of better pictures and datacasting. I commend the member for Lindsay for her excellent work on this and I commend the report to the House.

John Murphy (Lowe, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I seek leave to respond to one point that the member for Hinkler made at the outset of his contribution. If I understood it correctly he made the point that he believed that the committee was fair to the existing free-to-air players and was not advocating for the introduction of a fourth free-to-air television licence to provide a further free-to-air television network in Australia. I only wanted to make the point in the context of the whole of the government’s media policy that you have people like John Singleton who would like to have a fourth free-to-air television licence in Australia which would be 100 per cent Australian content. That would be a good thing.

I know the member for Hinkler is aware of my bona fides in relation to this policy because, when I was a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and the Arts in the 39th Parliament, we got along so well that I was anointed—I would not say this at my local branches!—as an honorary member of The Nationals. The member for Hinkler conducted the communication inquiries very well, but he will clearly recall that I wanted to initiate an inquiry into media ownership even at that stage, before the government announced that it was going to reform our media ownership laws and deregulate the laws to allow a media proprietor to own television stations, radio stations and newspapers, all in the one market. This was against a background of no-one else being allowed to have a fourth free-to-air television licence and the two biggest players—Mr Murdoch and Mr Packer—having the monopoly on pay television.

I am sincerely concerned about that. I know the member for Hinkler is as well, because he has spoken about this. I am not sure whether the member for Lindsay has, but I know the member for Hinkler has because of the nature of the media in his electorate in Queensland. It is something that all of us should have a serious look at. I really hope that out of this debate today—I pay tribute to the member for Lindsay for the job that she did on this committee—the member for Hinkler can get some honest debate going on his backbench. I talked to many members of the government. Mr Packer and Mr Murdoch would chew and spit all of us out when it suited them, and that is just not in the public interest. It is not good for our democracy. I would like to see so many more media owners in Australia so that we might get greater diversity of news and information. That can only be very healthy for the public interest and the future of our democracy. I am grateful for the opportunity to make these few comments, and I commend the member for Lindsay and the committee for the work they have done in this area.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I wish to intervene. I wish to ask a question.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the member willing?

John Murphy (Lowe, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to allow a question.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is in two parts. Firstly, was it not Mr Singleton’s view that this fourth network would go straight to digital? Secondly, would the member for Lowe think there was sufficient product available to ensure that we had six free-to-air channels, given the falling standard that we have seen over recent years?

John Murphy (Lowe, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer to the first part of the member’s question is yes. In response to the second part, it is my understanding that Mr Singleton had a very close personal relationship with the late Kerry Packer and, notwithstanding his desire to provide that fourth licence and 100 per cent Australian content, he certainly was not of a mind to take on Mr Packer. That is probably why this matter has not progressed very far.

But when you think of just how few media players we have and just how powerful they are—and we know they can change governments if they are all campaigning against you—you realise it is a very serious matter to allow the Packer camp to buy Fairfax and the Murdoch camp to buy free-to-air television network, because they are getting very heavily involved in all the new age media and are moving aggressively into the internet, where a lot of people get their news and information from.

But the internet is not where most people get their information from. Every day we turn on a radio station, open a newspaper and look at a free-to-air television broadcast and that, in the main, influences the way we think and vote. I would like to think there is a way around this. When the debate occurred in the last parliament, I did not accept it when the former head of the Australian Broadcasting Authority, Professor David Flint, said that he could issue certificates of exemption to separate a newspaper proprietor from their editors. We just know that is not realistic—human nature would not allow it.

Look at what Peter Andren, the member for Calare, said about his time working for Mr Packer and how Mr Packer used to interfere with the news bulletins. Then I point to one of the most important issues that faced this government in recent years: Australia’s involvement in the war in Iraq, where all Mr Murdoch’s newspapers in North America, United Kingdom and Australia showed uniform editorial support for the war. He is entitled to have a view, and I have no problem with that, but as one of 300,000 or 400,000 people who marched in the streets in Sydney against our participation in the coalition of the willing—and the some one million people who marched in the streets of London; I spoke to someone there at that time—you might have thought that somewhere in the UK, Australia or even North America an editor working for News Corporation or News Ltd would have come out and challenged the position of the boss. Of course they did not do that—and why? Because he who pays the piper calls the tune, and it is human nature.

We have to take this to the stage where we can do something about it and have more opportunity for real people to provide competition. We know that individuals who set up their own websites will not be able to provide any serious competition to PBL and News Ltd in Australia. I know that some members of the government are very worried about these issues of the public interest and the future of our democracy, so I hope that when the debate occurs we can do something sensible about this. I would have no problem with changing the laws if the existing major players shed some of their assets; but, as I understand it, the government are proposing to allow them to hang onto everything they have and they can buy even more assets.

Just imagine the clout of James Packer and Lachlan or Rupert Murdoch if they owned television stations, radio stations and newspapers in Sydney, or anywhere else for that matter. They have the monopoly on pay television and no-one else is allowed to have a fourth free-to-air television network. The big players are obtaining the major news and information sites on the internet with all the banners that lead back to their own publications and other forms of electronic media. It is a serious issue that I feel passionately about. I am not against Mr Packer or Mr Murdoch, but I want to see some sense in this debate. I would like to think that, when people go to the ballot box on election day to cast their vote in Hinkler, Lindsay, Lowe or anywhere else, their vote will actually count and we will not effectively be in a situation where you ‘vote 1 Packer’ and ‘vote 2 Murdoch’ and only worry about the donkey vote. I really believe that is a threat because those entities are so powerful when they run an editorial line against the government or the opposition. And winds change: we know that they have supported our side of politics in the past and doubtless they will again, but it should be at the expense of concentrating media ownership.

For instance, I would be the first to advise Kim Beazley—and I am his parliamentary secretary—that the last thing he should do is to mortgage his heart and soul to the two biggest media companies to become Prime Minister. That sort of thing would be absolutely appalling, and we cannot allow that. I have made my point and I do not want to delay the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to express those thoughts and I know my two colleagues here will promote some of the things I am saying in the debate with their colleagues when the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill comes back to the House for debate.

Debate (on motion by Mr Danby) adjourned.