Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill. I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006 amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, the BSA, and the Radiocommunications Act 1992, the Radcoms Act, to provide a framework to implement the model agreed with WIN and Prime for the conversion of their commercial television broadcasting services in regional and remote Western Australia from analog to digital.

The bill will facilitate, as part of the digital conversion model, the joint provision by WIN and Prime of a new, third digital commercial television service under section 38B of the BSA for people living outside Perth. For the first time, regional Western Australians will be able to enjoy a level of television services similar to those currently enjoyed by viewers in Perth.

The bill will extend the same arrangements to the commercial broadcasters in the other remote licence area, remote Central and Eastern Australia, should those broadcasters choose a similar digital television conversion model for their market.

The BSA currently does not specify detailed measures for the introduction of digital television services in remote areas. This was in recognition of the need to give consideration to the special circumstances of remote areas. The Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA,  is required to make a legislative instrument—a Commercial Television Conversion Scheme—to set out the terms of that conversion process.

In addition, section 38B of the BSA allows commercial broadcasters in licence areas with only two commercial licences to jointly—or one broadcaster individually—elect to provide a third, digital-only service. Under the current provisions, where they elect to do so jointly, they must provide each of the digital versions of their analog services, and the new joint service, on a separate television channel, and provide high definition television—HDTV—programs.

Items 1 to 8 of schedule 1 to the bill contain amendments to the BSA that define the circumstances where remote area licensees can elect to provide a section 38B service. Remote area licensees who have elected to provide jointly a section 38B service will be able to multichannel the three commercial digital services on a single radiofrequency channel, with exemption from HDTV quotas. Similarly, if the section 38B service is provided by only one of the two licensees, that licensee will be able to multichannel the digital version of their analog service and the section 38B service on a single digital channel.

This represents a significant saving for the licensees concerned. Instead of having to establish and maintain two or three sets of digital transmission infrastructure, with capacity for HDTV, they will be able to establish only one shared set of infrastructure, without the additional cost of investing in HDTV equipment.

This also represents significant cost savings in respect of the public purse because funding assistance to the broadcasters under the government’s Regional Equalisation Plan, REP, to help meet digital conversion costs is reduced, corresponding with the reduced digital conversion costs to broadcasters. Nevertheless, the government will provide substantial REP assistance to WIN and Prime of $19.36 million over eight years to support the implementation of their digital conversion model in regional and remote Western Australia.

Items 9 to 11 of schedule 1 to the bill contain corresponding amendments to the Radiocommunications Act relating to the transmitter licences that authorise the operation of WIN and Prime’s shared set of digital transmitters in regional and remote Western Australia. 

Passage of this legislation will enable ACMA to proceed to develop the Commercial Television Conversion Scheme for Western Australian regional and remote areas, allowing digital broadcasting to commence in these areas and the new services to be provided.

The digital television conversion model, which would be enabled by passage of the bill, represents a balance between public interest considerations and the special circumstances of remote area commercial television broadcasters. These broadcasters face significant cost pressures due to the wide geographic areas they service and the sparse population. Delivery of HDTV to all viewers in this market would be a very significant cost to broadcasters. Viewers will benefit from the new third digital service, delivering a substantially increased range of information and entertainment.

Nevertheless, the bill makes specific provision for remote commercial broadcasters to change their digital transmission arrangements in the future to provide HDTV services, if they choose to do so.

This bill represents a further demonstration of the government’s commitment to facilitate the availability of digital television broadcasting services throughout Australia. I congratulate the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Helen Coonan, on her work. I thank the members of her department and I am delighted to commend this bill to the Committee.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006. Labor welcomes the fact this legislation has finally made it to the floor of this Committee. This short bill contains a number of technical amendments, which should allow the commencement of digital television services in remote parts of Western Australia. If this legislation is passed, people in places such as Geraldton and Kalgoorlie will be able to enjoy a similar range of services to people who live in Perth. They will also, for the first time, be able to enjoy superior picture and sound quality offered by digital television. Labor supports the objective and will support this bill through the Committee.

Digital television broadcast commenced in metropolitan Australia in 2001 and broadcasters in most regional areas of Australia began transmission in 2004. The rollout of infrastructure for digital broadcasting has progressed well since. The free-to-air digital TV is available to about 85 per cent of Australian households and the state capitals and around 31 regional centres have access to all of their existing free-to-air television channels in digital.

However, there are currently no provisions in the Broadcasting Services Act which establishes a framework for establishing digital television in the remote parts of Australia. These are large areas of territory that are serviced by only two commercial broadcasters. In places like outback Western Australia, the population is disbursed over long distances and broadcasters need to invest in many transmission sites in order to reach their audience. This legislation seeks to reduce the costs of making that investment and improves incentives for remote broadcasters to invest in digital transmission equipment.

I turn to a couple of specifics in the bill. The bill provides that, in remote licence areas, broadcasters will be permitted, either individually or through the establishment of a joint venture company, to broadcast a new digital-only service. The new service will also broadcast the digital version of the existing analog services on the same channel. In technical terms, that is what is known as multichannelling. Digital broadcasting is about six times more efficient than analog broadcasting in its use of specific spectrum. Broadcasters will also be able to comfortably transmit three digital services within the space occupied by one analog channel.

The bill also contains a further measure to reduce the cost of establishing a new digital service in remote Australia. In metropolitan and regional markets, licensees are required to broadcast 1,040 hours per year in high-definition digital format. The costs of triple-casting—that is, broadcasting in analog, standard definition digital and high-definition digital—are of course substantial. This is particularly the case for small broadcasters. To address this issue, the bill allows remote licensees to elect to broadcast only in standard definition format. The ability to opt out of high-definition broadcasting will significantly reduce the cost of providing digital services in remote areas.

Labor understands that, on the basis of the provisions of the bill, Prime and WIN have indicated that they will form a joint venture company to introduce a new digital-only service in remote Western Australia in 2007—next year. The new service will consist primarily of content from the Ten Network that is seen in Perth. Over time, these changes could lead to the commencement of digital services in other remote licence areas in the Northern Territory, Queensland, South Australia and New South Wales. Labor welcomes these measures to give broadcasters and viewers an incentive to invest in digital television and will support their passage through the House.

I would like to take the opportunity provided by this bill to also make some comments on broader aspects of digital television. The policy changes that are required in this area are obviously not limited to digital television. It is now more than five years since free-to-air digital television broadcasts began in this country. Unfortunately, the take-up has been disappointingly low and slow. According to industry data, about 25 per cent of households have purchased the necessary equipment to receive terrestrial digital free-to-air broadcasts. If you add in the households that receive digital television through pay TV, take-up rises to around 30 per cent, but not all these households can receive the digital free-to-air channels as well.

Back in 2000, the government set a target to switch off analog broadcasting by the end of 2008, which today is not too far away. Of course, it has been clear for some time that there is no way this target can be met. No government could turn off analog broadcasts and leave millions of families staring at blank screens, with useless equipment. The government has accepted that the digital television policies that it has pursued for the last eight years have failed. In July, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts announced that she had postponed the analog switch-off until some time between 2010 and 2012. For many in the community, the switch to digital television is a somewhat esoteric issue. There is a very low level of awareness in the community about the benefits of digital television and why it matters—not just for viewers but also for the broadcasting industry and the economy in general, and I think that is a view held by most people on both sides of the House. It is certainly my personal view as well as that of the broader Labor Party.

As I mentioned earlier, digital broadcasting is far more efficient in its use of sparse spectrum. There are large gains to be made, though, from freeing up the spectrum currently used for analog broadcasting for alternative services. Reclaimed spectrum could be used to provide a host of new services to the community. The part of the spectrum used by broadcasting is known in the industry as ‘the sweet spot’. Its characteristics mean that it is perfect for wireless broadband. In the future, business and consumers will want to be able to get broadband any time, anywhere. There is a clear direction and a path in view of that. We need to make sure that there is sufficient spectrum to provide these new services as they become needed. Reclaimed spectrum could also be used to deliver several new television channels and increase choice for consumers. This is particularly important, I think, for consumers in regional and rural areas or in remote parts of Australia. These could be community channels, channels catering to special interests or in fact new commercial networks.

In the digital divide, the benefit of redeploying the spectrum currently used for analog broadcasting could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars to Australia. In Britain, for example, the government has estimated that overcoming the digital divide is worth up to £2.2 billion to their economy. We do not know what size the benefit could be for Australia because the government simply has not made an effort to calculate or pursue that. This is, of course, not a surprise: a study of the benefits of digital transmission would only highlight the real cost to Australia of the flawed policies that the government has pursued over the last few years which have in fact held back digital television.

Rapid transition to digital is important for the local television production industry. In countries like the United Kingdom, the United States and Germany, consumers are rapidly embracing digital applications like interactive television. We only need look at the internet and sites like YouTube and others that are making headlines around the world to see the rapid pace at which consumers will adapt and adopt new technologies if given the opportunity. I think Australia would be in that same category. Again, I say this would be a real bonus, a real choice for consumers, particularly in regional parts. I note the member for Hinkler in the chamber, and I am assuming he would agree that it would give more choice and more opportunities for rural consumers. If the producers of Australian content do not keep up with these developments this country is at risk of losing lucrative export markets. Exports have historically played an important role in underpinning domestic production. A lengthy transition to digital television also imposes a direct cost on the Commonwealth budget.

According to the government’s own figures, every year around $75 million is required to meet the analog broadcasting costs of the ABC and SBS and to assist regional broadcasters. The economic case for switching to digital is clear—without putting a pun on it! It should be a national priority to achieve the switch-over to digital as soon as possible, as soon as practicable, and the government should be working very hard in that direction. If we are to achieve switch-over by 2012 the government needs to develop a set of policies to drive a rapid take-up, education and an explanation of what the benefits are. I do not think the vast majority of consumers have got any idea why they should spend any money to go to digital. We actually get quite a decent service as it is, so if they do not know the benefits they are not going to switch over. Digital take-up in Australia lags far behind comparable countries. As I said before, the United States, Britain, Germany, Ireland, Canada, Norway and Sweden are all countries way ahead of us in the game.

Last month the minister announced that the government would develop a digital action plan for take-up. This plan is long overdue. Let us see what the government will provide. The government needs to provide some detail on how switch-over will be coordinated. Consumers need to understand how this will actually work. A concerted effort needs to be made to increase consumer awareness of the process of digital transmission and its benefits. A survey conducted last year by the Australian Communications and Media Authority shows that there is much work to be done. It found that about 17 per cent of responders had never heard of digital television, 45 per cent did not know if digital television services were even available in their area, 42 per cent said they were just not interested in switching to digital and 38 per cent were not aware that digital television would replace the current analog service. They are pretty frightening figures.

There is still no requirement that analog equipment will be properly labelled so that consumers will know that it needs to be replaced or converted when the switch-over occurs. Another significant policy gap is the fact that no details have been provided on what assistance will be available to the disadvantaged who are left behind when the switch-over occurs. In the US, the congress allocated nearly $US1 billion for subsidies for the purchase of set-top boxes. In Britain, £400,000 has been set aside from the BBC licence fees to assist the disadvantaged to switch over. So the task of achieving digital switch-over is a huge policy challenge and does involve a cost to government. In the UK, where 72 per cent of households have access to digital TV, it has been estimated that only 40 per cent of televisions have actually been converted.

Evidence from Australia and around the world has also shown that the best way to drive up digital take-up is to allow media companies to provide consumers with access to attractive new content. So far the government has made only modest steps in this direction. The government has said that there will be new digital services but has provided little detail on the services that will be permitted. On Tuesday the minister stated that the new in-home digital channels will be datacasting or narrowcasting services. Labor is concerned that the conditions on the minister’s promised new and innovative services will be so restrictive that they will not be attractive to media companies or prospective viewers, and you can easily understand any associated problems if that were to be the case.

The minister has talked about niche services like a boating channel or a classified advertising channel. While these services will attract some consumers, it is highly unlikely that narrow services like these will attract significant numbers of people to invest in digital set-top boxes. You also have to ask whether it is good value for taxpayers to tie up hundreds of millions of dollars worth of valuable spectrum providing services of such narrow appeal. Labor does welcome the government’s decision to allow free-to-air broadcasters to run a second digital-only channel. In the UK, multichannelling has been the main driver of digital take-up, and it should be noted for Australia. For the one-off cost of a set-top box, British consumers are able to access around 30 digital channels. The government has sought to restrict multichannelling, however, in a way which will limit the potential of the new multichannelling to drive consumer take-up. Until 2009, broadcasters will be able to multichannel only in high-definition format. High-definition equipment is at least three times more expensive than standard definition equipment, a cost that most family households cannot afford. Only around seven per cent of Australian households have actually got HD equipment. It must be doubtful whether any commercial broadcaster will target a market so small in size.

The government has also agreed to relax the absurd genre restrictions which currently limit what the ABC and SBS can show on their digital channels. Labor welcomes this direction. Lifting the genre restrictions is a policy that the opposition has advocated since before the last election. As always, it is good to see government taking up good opposition policies in areas such as this and others. Under the current rules the ABC and SBS are permitted to multichannel. The ABC has used these provisions to establish ABC2, and SBS has launched a World News Channel. Labor commends the ABC and SBS for trying to drive digital take-up despite their limited resources and challenges from government.

To date, the efforts of the national broadcasters to stimulate consumer interest in digital TV have been hamstrung by the restrictive rules which limit their programming. The ABC cannot show a national news bulletin, national current affairs programs or drama on ABC2. Similarly, while SBS can broadcast foreign language bulletins on its World News Channel, it is not able to broadcast English language bulletins from countries like Germany, Israel or New Zealand. The genre restrictions make distinctions which are arbitrary and illogical. For example, ABC2 is permitted to broadcast public policy programs, such as Insiders, but not current affairs programs, like The 7.30 Report.

In the UK, extra channels and interactive services offered by the BBC have made an important contribution to generating consumer demand for digital. Under its new charter, the BBC will be given a leading role in building a digital Britain. Labor believes that our national broadcasters need to be given the regulatory freedom and financial resources to undertake a similar task in Australia. In July, the minister announced as part of her media package the government’s intention to relax the genre restrictions. As I said, the announcement is welcome, but extra funding is also needed if the ABC and SBS are to make the most of digital broadcasting. In the last budget, however, the government rejected bids by the ABC and SBS to produce new digital content. The government should go back and re-examine this decision so that the national broadcasters can play a significant role in driving digital take-up across the country.

In conclusion, it does have to be noted that the government has been extremely tardy in progressing the changes contained in this bill through the parliament. We hear a lot of noise from those opposite about their commitment to regional and remote Australia, but the practical measures contained in this bill have been very low on their list of priorities. The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) was introduced into the other place in June 2005. It was not until August 2006 that the government saw fit to bring it on for debate.

Since July 2005, the Howard government has had a majority in the Senate. Since it took control of the Senate, the government has made time in the program for things that it really cares about but not for others. It made time to ram through the legislation for the full sale of Telstra. It has made time to pass its extreme industrial relations legislation. These are the things that have been the government’s priorities this term: setting up the fire sale of Telstra, cutting workers’ penalty rates and allowing workers to be unfairly dismissed. This is the real reason why sensible, practical measures like the ones contained in this bill have been delayed for so long. Labor is pleased that the government has finally given this legislation an opportunity to be debated. Labor will be supporting this bill so that remote digital television services can begin to be rolled out across remote parts of Australia.

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

The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006 will help expand the range of television services available to people living in remote areas of Australia and was developed with communities in remote Western Australia specifically in mind. In effect, the bill was developed to allow commercial television broadcasting licensees in remote licence areas to jointly multichannel their digital services, if they chose to do so. It will also give a single broadcaster the option of providing a third digital-only service as an individual entity under section 38B of the Broadcasting Services Act.

These amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the Radiocommunications Act 1992 will give licensees an exemption from any mandatory high-definition quotas where they elect to provide a third digital-only commercial service and multichannel their digital television services. This bill was developed with the specific cases of WIN and Prime in Western Australia in mind, where they are converting their television services from analog to digital in remote areas of Western Australia. It will allow these two broadcasters to adopt more flexible technical and programming solutions in the outlying areas of Western Australia by letting them share digital transmission infrastructure. I commend this. I think it is a very practical and sensible measure.

The government recognises that regional commercial broadcasters face proportionately greater costs in establishing digital television compared, say, with those in metropolitan areas. It just stands to reason that anywhere in regional Australia, in country areas, economies of scale will be a lot more strained, but when you get to Western Australia they are strained even further. To illustrate this, in Prime’s case I understand that around 200 digital transmitters are needed to stretch across regional Australia for it to reach a potential audience of 4.8 million people. In comparison, a mere half-a-dozen transmitters are required by Sydney metropolitan broadcasters to reach almost the same number—a potential, in that case, of 4.3 million people. So here you have 200 transmitters for 4.8 million people and there you have six or so transmitters for nearly 4½ million people. When you consider the costs associated with broadcasting digital transmissions, licensees in remote areas have the additional expense of installing satellite and microwave bearer networks, which are needed to deliver the broadcast signal to the transmitters. Of course, other things like maintenance are also a quite heavy burden. I welcome the government’s contribution of $19 million towards this program. It was long awaited and will be of great benefit to people in the remote parts of Western Australia—in fact, just about all of Western Australia outside the Perth area.

The measures contained in the bill have been drafted to allow incumbent broadcasters in a two-commercial operated regional market to jointly or individually provide a third digital-only television service. That is not just for Western Australia; parts of the Northern Territory, Queensland, South Australia and New South Wales have similar problems. Licensees electing to provide a third jointly operated service will do so using a full seven megahertz digital channel and will be subject to the requirements to provide a quota of programming in high-definition digital mode. However, if one of the licensees individually provides the additional service, under section 38B that licensee can choose to multichannel the digital transmission of the parent service and provide the new service in standard definition digital mode using a single seven megahertz channel, with an exemption from high-definition television requirements. Some purists will say, ‘That’s not good enough for the bush.’ I think this is a very good compromise. Standard definition is going to be such an improvement over the current analog services, especially in a remote area, that I think most people will be more than happy and grateful to have it. I, for one, am not a great devotee of the high-definition medium itself, although I recognise that a lot of people want it. I like digital television for the range of services that it can potentially provide.

The arrangements we have been talking about, which would soften the rules, might not have been in the best interests of the television stations—or the viewers in remote parts of Australia—if the stations had been pinned down to more prescriptive transmission requirements. Had there not been common sense on the part of existing broadcasters and the government, people in the remote areas of Western Australia may never have seen the best features of digital television. The needs of audiences in regional Australia coupled with the regulatory requirements for local content prohibit regional broadcasters from simply providing a homogenised program and advertising feed to all regional areas. They should not be allowed to do that anyhow. As much localism as possible should be introduced into news bulletins, for example, and advertising should be relevant to the market. It is a criticism of some of the satellite services that you get advertising that is in no way relevant to your area.

Regional broadcasters have an obligation to service their smaller submarkets in order to meet audience need and to comply with government regulations. They must also be able to maintain their commercial viability, which is the other side of the coin. All Australians, regardless of where they live, should have access to a superior television viewing experience, and that superior experience comes from digital services. Digital television offers viewers greater picture clarity and enhanced sound. Digital television is broadcast in wide-screen format—the 9:16 ratio—which certainly gives you a greatly enhanced picture. It also has the capacity for subsidiary channels, multichannelling and interactive services and will eventually deliver different forms of datacasting which will extend the function of our television sets.

The member for Oxley made some interesting points. I stand to be corrected on this, but I think the government’s original intention was that the switch-off date would not be for 10 years and that either an agreement with, or an amendment by, the Democrats brought that back to 2008. Certainly 2010 is a more realistic date. I hope that it does not go out to 2012. I favour some further relaxation of multichannelling. I know there are balances in multichannelling between the free-to-airs—the ABC and SBS and the commercials—on the one hand and pay television on the other hand. I am not suggesting that there should be a bloodbath in that respect. But while I welcome the multichannelling announcement of the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts I urge her and the government to bring that forward as much as possible. If we want people to take up digital television we must provide them with a greater television experience. My view is that, notwithstanding the fact that the ABC’s second channel and SBS’s news channel are both good services, they need greater enhancement. I welcome the lifting of the genre restrictions on the ABC and SBS and I think, as the member for Oxley said, there is a case for increasing the funding of the ABC so it can build good programming formats around the lifting of the genre restrictions.

I welcomed in this year’s budget the extra $88 million to the ABC which allowed it to put $13 million into country areas and $30 million into drama. I thought that was a great thing. If the ABC is not doing drama at a high standard it will be hard to get other people in Australia to do it. We should provide avenues for the young people we train in this country to have a future in theatre and television. We can do that only if we enhance the new mediums in such a way that drama is called for. A second digital channel—not only for the ABC and SBS but perhaps even for the commercials—would give the drama and production industry of television a great boost. As I have said, we need localism wherever possible. We need diversity and we need competition. In Western Australia, for example, there will now be three commercial channels to choose from.

We should bring forward the multichannelling agenda. That is important from the point of view of encouraging the public to buy sets. If I were a passive person—identified, like the member for Oxley was, from that survey—I do not think that I would be rushing out to buy a digital television set. One of the things I would like to see in the three commercial sectors would be a subsidiary channel showing two football games on a Sunday. Why are we restricted to one? Why can we not have the game of the day in high definition and the second game on a subsidiary channel? Say there is a game of state or interstate interest. In the NRL, for example, if the Broncos are playing the Cowboys there will be great Queensland interest. If two South Australian teams are playing in the AFL there will be a great deal of intrastate interest.

It is a bit strange that we cannot have a second game on the subsidiary channel. It is a great medium. We have great sport in this country. All three of the commercial channels from time to time have paid huge money for broadcasting rights. It is churlish to have tough or tougher antisiphoning rules on the one hand and to restrict the ability in some ways of the television stations to be able to get the maximum benefit out of live television on the other. I am not suggesting, in using a multichannelling facility, that we should necessarily allow two night games. I am talking about Saturday, Sunday and public holidays. Perhaps at night the channels should be required to show a regular program and one game. These things have to be kept in balance. Also, as I said before, the brakes on these things should be taken off with consideration being given to keeping a spirit of balance between the commercials and pay television in the market. You cannot just throw all the balls in the air and hope they will come down with a spirit of fairness.

I also welcome channel A, the digital data facility. I think there is a great opportunity there. In addition to good data services, stock exchange and weather information, rural reports and so on, news with 10-minute film inserts will be of great benefit to busy people who want to get things on the television set. There is a good case for multichannelling. I may be speculating, but a little further down the track, in the markets we have just been talking about in today’s debate, we could give incentives to extend digital data services into remote areas. That might be something that the minister and the department could look into now, rather than have the criticism we have experienced today of leaving this a bit late.

We will also have channel B, which will be for handheld devices. You have only to see how young people are engaging with these new forms of communication—the internet, television, iPods and all sorts of other things—to know that that will eventually become a very popular medium. I also welcome the minister’s announcement that channel B will go onto a neutral platform and that there will be strict access arrangements. I think access arrangements in Australia could be a lot better in a lot of fields, not just in broadcast communications but also in telecommunications. I have great ambivalence about what has been going on with Telstra; I also think that the pay agenda on television could have been handled a lot better and a lot more fairly when that was rolled out some years ago. I will not comment further on that, because it is a matter before the courts, other than to make that general observation.

You can see that we are moving into very interesting times, and for people in remote Western Australia this is the first step forward. I would encourage the government and the department not only to look at providing this third channel for people in remote Western Australia and later on in other remote parts of Australia but also to see how we can get other services to them so that in the fullness of time they too can enjoy the benefits of digital television. I commend the bill to the Main Committee.

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

I will take the opportunity to respond to some comments from the member for Hinkler which I found resonated very much with those of us who sit on this side of the political divide. When the member referred to considering the matters of diversity, localism and competition to be of great importance, all I can say is hear, hear and amen. He went on to remark later in his speech that he had some ambivalence about Telstra; I think we share some of that ambivalence. I do want to acknowledge that the member for Hinkler has played a very constructive role, particularly for his constituents, in the debate and in the deliberations and policy outcomes as a consequence of the activity in this parliament, and in the introduction of other legislation concerning media which has been the subject of an enormous amount of public interest. But notwithstanding his comments, as he would be well aware, Labor still retains very strong concerns about the impact of the overall media package.

I also want to make some reference to the remarks of the member for Hinkler in encouraging the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts to consider both the timelines on the switch-off from analog to digital and those issues that both the minister and the department need to give some consideration to in order to expedite that. I will return to that a little later on in my comments when I refer to the inquiry into the uptake of digital television in Australia, which I, the member for Werriwa and others sat on and which brought down some recommendations that we thought were pretty useful in this debate.

The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006 amends the Broadcasting Services Act and it will allow commercial television licensees in remote licence areas the opportunity to multichannel their digital service—and that certainly will be a good thing for people in these remote licence areas. The fact that we have the possibility, in fact the likelihood, of a third commercial service coming into a remote licence area is certainly something Labor support and, as a consequence of course, we support the bill.

I want to make one comment at the beginning of this speech—that is, to encourage licensees, in particular if using Channel 10 material, to consider the broadcasting requirements which I think are both implicit and explicit in parts of the act but certainly are implicit in the exercise of the licence, particularly going into remote areas. A number of these areas will be places with high Indigenous populations, and it is very likely that over time, given population growth amongst Indigenous communities in remote Australia, particularly in Northern Australia, there will be a substantial viewing audience that is constituted by Indigenous people. I think any licensee has a primary responsibility to respond to that audience—and I know they will certainly wish to be aware of that audience’s needs—but also to be aware of the circumstances that those communities find themselves in, particularly with their viewing patterns and viewing habits and the kind of material and information that they may need delivered in the best way that media can, not only to entertain but also to inform and educate. It strikes me that that is an extremely important part of the overall responsibilities that a licensee would have.

If, in fact, it is Golden West Network and WIN in Western Australia that will jointly launch a digital service to remote parts of Western Australia, this obviously becomes important. With towns like Kalgoorlie, Port Hedland and Geraldton getting the benefit of a new service commencing in 2007, as we understand, with a lot of Ten Network sourcing material, it will be particularly important for the licensees to consider the nature of the material they are sourcing and the impact and good purpose that that material will serve to that viewing audience. But there is no doubt that regional viewers will get high-quality digital TV and an extra commercial television service, and that is a good thing.

We also hope that these changes will lead to other digital services being taken up in other remote licence areas, including the Northern Territory, Queensland and Tasmania. Certainly, the take-up of digital television means that spectrum can be returned for other services. We are really on the cusp of a quite exciting period, albeit challenging and in some ways frustrating because of some of the policy deficiencies of the Howard government. Nevertheless, it certainly is an exciting period more generally in terms of media access, media delivery, content delivery and the different technological models that are going to be available particularly once we have a freeing up of spectrum. I certainly see a very valuable role to be played in remote Australia for community broadcasting in particular, and that is something to be greatly encouraged.

I was alarmed to see that the one aspect of the community broadcasting program delivery content that was not given the support that it needed in the last budget brought down by the Treasurer related to the Australian music programs which could be networked across community broadcasting. I think they have played a very valuable role for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous performers and musicians to have their music heard in remote areas, and it was regrettable indeed that the resources for that program in particular were greatly reduced in the budget allocation.

I want to pick up very quickly on one of the comments from the previous speaker, the member for Hinkler, when he spoke about the desirability of making sure that the ABC, in this rapidly changing media landscape, is given sufficient resources to enable it to fulfil its functions, particularly with the additional capacity that it now has. I make the point that the additional funds that were made available in the last budget, including those funds that were directed into remote Australia and, in addition, the funds that would be identified for the production of drama content, were welcomed by us, but I think it needs to be acknowledged again here that they came on the back of some significant funding restrictions that had been part of the Howard government’s policy since the time that it took office. So, really, that was the government playing a little bit of catch-up, recognising in fact that by starving the ABC of funds up to that point in time it had to do something, particularly given the deficit of local drama and local stories appearing on the ABC, which traditionally had been one of the nurseries of film talent, television talent, writing, producing, acting and so on. I very much want to endorse the remarks of the member for Hinkler when he pointed out that the need for a greater enhancement of the ABC’s capacity is an absolutely essential prerequisite for the ongoing policy output in this new and changed media landscape.

One of the things that is interesting in this debate is that digital TV has not been taken up in any big way by the Australian population. Even though digital free-to-air TV is available to about 85 per cent of Australian homes, the take-up has been particularly poor here. I think the government must bear some responsibility for that, including the business of dates of switch-off, which has confused many of the public. In any event, under this bill, hopefully there will be more incentive for remote broadcasters because there is the capacity for multichannelling. In metropolitan and regional areas now, they have a requirement to broadcast over 1,000 hours per year of high-definition digital signal. Now that remote broadcasters are enabled and, in fact, required to broadcast in standard digital format their costs have come down, but it means that the take-up of digital as a consequence, hopefully, will be greater. It certainly means that remote broadcasters have an incentive to invest in digital TV whereas previously the costs were considered to be fairly high.

Other members have spoken of the benefits of digital and I agree. I think the fact that we focus on the availability of sporting events and we want to see more sporting events on television is natural in this country. I have a great affection for sport, as I know most members of parliament do and the public does as well. But, as we explore and examine the capacity for events of that nature to be seen more frequently and more accessibly, we also should think about other events including—in my capacity as shadow parliamentary secretary and Labor spokesman for the arts—arts events, which would probably generate a greater audience pick-up and interest than people might expect.

Why do we lag behind the world in standards of the take-up of digital TV? In the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Information Technology and the Arts report Digital television: who’s buying it? that I referred to earlier, we found that take-up rates in the UK were 63 per cent, 17 per cent in Italy and 15 per cent in the US. The switch-off date that Senator Coonan has announced is intended to try and increase that amount of take-up, but there is clearly a lot of work to be done in the meantime. Labor does support this legislation, but it recognises the kind of work that has to be done by the government in providing sufficient public information and education about digital. It is really a shortfall and a shortcoming of the minister. ACMA released research last year which found that some 17 per cent of respondents did not know about digital TV at all, 45 per cent did not know if they could access it, 42 per cent simply were not interested and 38 per cent did not know that at some point in time digital TV would replace analog TV. We have a long way to go. The minister has a lot of work to do.

On the broader question of media reforms, I hope members will be granted many opportunities to debate more fully the so-called reforms that the minister has introduced and that are travelling through this House. I want to put on record the very high level of concern that I have about the likely impact of the reforms as announced in their final form by the government. In particular, I want to note the possible and likely impacts upon the journalists’ profession in potential job losses. Most clearly, there is the likelihood of the reduction of a diversity of voices, particularly in the metropolitan markets. It is the lifeblood of our democracy. There have been many comments of this sort made, but it is true and it needs to be said. The lifeblood of democracy is to have a diversity of voices, particularly in news and current affairs, and information available to people to enable them to participate and make judgements about civil society.

As a consequence of those reforms and those laws that are coming through this parliament, we have had our democratic capacity as consumers of media significantly truncated and reduced. I do not think there is any doubt that a number of the arguments that were put up by the government were not about diversity or new technologies or anything of the kind; they were arguments that had been driven by a need to do something. And it will be commercial interests, more than anything else, that will drive what the media landscape will look like in a few years time.

On the basis of those comments, to which I hope I will have the opportunity to refer again later on, we do support this bill. We recognise that the government has a great deal of work to do in educating and speeding up the switch-over from analog to digital. Additionally, we do urge licensees to consider the kind of material that they are able to provide to people in remote communities. For my part, I very strongly urge them to consider their Indigenous audiences in that respect.

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006 is important legislation, and of course it is doubly important to people like me and the member for Canning, who sits alongside me, as it contains specific references to the dissemination of digital television services and additional services within remote areas. That is particularly so for those in the footprint of the two commercial stations that cover virtually all of rural Western Australia, impinging on areas of responsibility for the member for Canning and covering my electorate entirely. So I welcome this initiative.

Nevertheless, there are other comments that I am anxious to make, the first of which is that, in digital technology, the set-top box does a huge amount of the interpretation, allowing for all sorts of mixed signals to be sent over the airwaves—the spectrum as we know it—that can be sorted out at the point of receival. That is in great contrast to analog television, where the signal has to travel in its entirety through the air to effect the operations of the TV set. As a consequence of course, as has been reported in the past, the amount of spectrum required to distribute an analog television signal represents the same area needed for 100,000 mobile telephones. So the spectrum is a very important issue.

Interestingly enough, as I understand it, in my electorate the transmission via satellite into the footprint is already digitised. But clearly the problem arises when that signal arrives on the ground. If you are in an individual homestead somewhere with your own receiver dish, presumably the signal that arrives from the satellite presently will be transferable into your equipment. But what we find in the small communities that I represent—for instance, there are 50 individual local authorities, many of which have two or three towns—is that the townsfolk do not want a dish apiece; they want some locally transmitted service which has typically been provided by the community and, in particular, local government. I sincerely trust that when, as this legislation provides, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, is required to make a legislative instrument relating to a commercial television conversion scheme to set out the terms of the conversion process they will make sure that every time we get a technological change these community bodies are not forced to spend more money to be able to retransmit the new service, as has occurred in the past.

That is quite a serious issue because that is where some of the complexity resides, and it has been my experience that when the digitised signal came down from the satellite these community facilities were literally handed a domestic set-top box and told to put in their little television station—their little retransmission facility. Now that is just not of a quality sufficient to do the job in that circumstance, and is less so if one is talking about a high definition digitised signal. That is a matter I hope those at ACMA who might review the speeches made in this debate take note of: that when they set the rules for this purpose they make sure that there is an obligation on those who get a substantial income from these services to ensure that the smaller retransmission services—the stations providing the service in the larger communities—are not financially disadvantaged again in retransmitting that service. That is an important factor that has to be taken into account.

I noted a number of comments made by the member for Kingsford Smith to which I would like to respond, but I support his argument that there should be something different on the additional channels that are being provided. I saw GWN, as we know it, virtually covering my electorate. They were consequently able to cherry pick the most popular programs of the three commercial stations, and with one dish and one set-top box you got the lot. Then all of a sudden along came WIN to improve the service, and suddenly one had the rugby and the football. Of course, the retransmission of the WIN service took time, and people who had been able to make that choice on a single service were suddenly without the service. It was just too bad if you preferred AFL to rugby league or whatever—you suddenly only had half of it.

But the other point was about what else they got. One mob got Neighbours and the other got—what is the other program called?

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Days of Our Lives?

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. For a while I referred to the program as ‘dissatisfied wives’; I think it is—

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Desperate Housewives.

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Desperate Housewives, yes. The last thing in the world we want is another channel representing another advertising stream that runs the same sort of rubbish. Yes, they have got plenty of that; certain people enjoy it. But for goodness sake!

As the member for Canning is well aware, there is a significant debate going on in the coalition about wheat marketing. You might wonder what in the hell that has got to do with this. Those who use the internet as a means of communication can, with the appropriate skills, access the website for the Chicago Board of Trade. They have discovered that in fact the price that someone could afford to pay them for their wheat in this era of drought, if they have that thing, is about $40 per tonne more than the monopoly marketing system is offering. And if you are down to a third—or luckily a half—of your ordinary production, 40 bucks a tonne means a lot.

Of course, that is a contradiction to the argument that this process always delivers better returns. But the point I make in this debate is that if everybody can turn on channel 3, or whatever it is going to be called, the datacasting channel under these new arrangements, and get that information on their television screens—and of course you can, particularly if the broadcaster is prepared to provide it—then everybody knows about it and they become a much more informed body.

I note today that the Canadian government has just issued an order upon its monopoly wheat marketer to stop it spending money on promoting itself and its benefits—in other words, the government wants an open debate. It is a pity we have not had one here yet. I say to the members of the opposition present that it is about time your representatives asked our ministers a few questions about the $40 differential. This has nothing to do with the philosophy of a single desk. How is it that the perfect system is going to cost one grower, a very big grower in my electorate, $1 million? That will not make him want to approach it. The point I am making is that, if this legislation—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Burke interjecting

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and if you bothered to listen—provides for datacasting that would assist more growers to become aware of where the dollars are, that might help. Please keep giving us the usually unsubstantiated information about individual workers, considering only 11,000 change their jobs every week in Australia, instead of looking at, for instance, the rights of people in other areas. That is your choice as the opposition.

I have made the point that I hope that this legislation will provide an adequate opportunity for datacasting and also the information that people require, not another series of Neighbours or Down Our Street or whatever else. That is an important thing.

I was interested to hear the member for Kingsford Smith say—I think in a broader reference—that he was concerned about the jobs of journalists if changes coming up in other legislation were accepted. Everyone worries about media proprietors dictating what journalists should write. I am not sure that that happens. I think journalists have significant control over the products we hear over the airwaves or we see in print journalism. The possibility of who will own a newspaper is open slather, except if you own a television station. Those sorts of matters are of importance. But I always thought that the best way for a journalist to keep their job—

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, could I ask my friend the member for O’Connor a question in relation to that?

Harry Quick (Franklin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the member for O’Connor willing to take a question?

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would be delighted.

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

Are you aware that all of Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers in North America, Australia and the United Kingdom gave universal editorial support for participation of the coalition of the willing in the war in Iraq?

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If that is your question, I am more than happy to answer it. I would not be at all surprised about that. I am further informed of a matter of history of which the member may not be aware. On one occasion when a former President of the United States, Ronald Reagan, gave an address to the nation, nearly all the newspapers in America had printed two front pages before the speech was made—one applauding it and another condemning it. As the speech ended, the pollsters hit the phones and the community said, ‘We like the one applauding the address,’ and all the newspapers ran that page. You tell me that that was a decision of the media proprietor. Yes, the media proprietors, including Mr Murdoch, had two pages ready and ran the one that they thought the community wanted to hear.

So, if you do not think the community has some effect on that and that it is all in the hands of a single media proprietor, you are mistaken. Also, I know that the ‘single media proprietor’ is not very popular with the Labor Party because in the first instance—and this question is using up your time—he supported Whitlam, because Whitlam promised him that he could import newsprint. Whitlam broke his promise and the proprietor took him to the cleaners the next time. If you want to play those sorts of games, you suffer that sort of problem.

I believe that I have adequately answered that question with historical fact and that I should come back to the comments of the member for Kingsford Smith. It interested me that the member for Kingsford Smith talked about the future of journalists. I think there are two factors to this. If I am a critic of the new legislation, it is because it continues to restrict the issuance of certain licences.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind the honourable member for O’Connor that we are almost to adjournment time. Would you like to seek leave to continue your remarks later?

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I probably will not continue my remarks. I have made the points that are of concern to me—that is, adequate datacasting and the way the changeover will be funded at the community level.

Debate (on motion by Mr Murphy) adjourned.