Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When the debate was interrupted, I was expressing concern that the government has decided, in the context of the introduction of digital television, to close something over 400 local transmitters. These are often self-help transmitters in small locations and provide television services direct to nearby households. Instead, the government has decided that people who receive their television from these transmitters will in future have to switch from terrestrial TV reception to satellite reception. The government has put in place a satellite subsidy scheme that reimburses eligible households to assist them in the cost of making that change. However, I think that there are still issues associated with the change from receiving television reception from a local transmitter to the new television arrangement that need to be addressed.

It is clear that receiving your television from a satellite is a second-best option. There is inconvenience involved and the technology is more complicated. Particularly elderly people or those who are not able to readily deal with some of the technology issues will face difficulties. I am aware that the government is proposing to offer people in-house assistance to help them understand the new technology, but I think we all know from dealing with parents and grandparents that they find these sorts of changes very difficult to manage. In addition, if you have multiple televisions in a house or you have televisions in different buildings, you are required to have much more expensive connections. The government is only offering to subsidise the initial set-top box. If that is lost or a tenant takes it to another place, the owner will be obliged to pay the future cost of those sorts of changeovers.

In reality it would be far better to keep operating as many of these transmitters as possible. In fact, for a relatively small investment out of the billions of dollars the government expects to make from the sale of the spectrum, it would be fair to help those who would actually pay the price. Those people have to give up analog television reception, which most of them are quite happy with, so that the government can sell off the spectrum, so surely they are entitled to be treated fairly and the government should go the extra mile to make sure that they receive a reasonable signal.

There are a number of other issues with getting your television reception from a satellite. Instead of getting local programs, you get programs that have been generically prepared in a faraway place to cover, in some cases, several states. So you no longer get local television advertisements, local information or programs that are particularly relevant to your needs, and there will be time change differences because of the inability of the satellite system to deal with various time zones. From those perspectives satellite reception is clearly inferior. The government has made an effort with its plans to develop a news channel so that regional news services can be transmitted in a local format. That is welcome, although there still seems to be quite some confusion about how that is actually going to happen. Even then, people will not get the news precisely at the right time; it will be replayed sometime later in the evening, either sequentially or simultaneously, so people will have to go through a somewhat more complicated system of programming to see their local news.

Every effort should be made to have the maximum possible number of people receiving their television in the traditional way rather than having to transfer to satellite. There are already quite a number of Australians in rural and remote areas who do get their television by satellite. For those people the new satellite will be an improvement, and it will be welcome from that perspective. However, there are scores of country communities and councils, particularly in states such as Queensland, that operate these local retransmission facilities via the satellite service and would like to continue operating them. At this stage, the government has not been willing to accept that option. The local communities would like to pool the subsidies that are available so that they can retransmit.

I appreciate, and I again acknowledge, that over recent times there has been some willingness on the part of the government to consider this option. I accept that there are technical issues, but, if the trial—which I understand is to be held quite soon—of the use of some technology that will enable this retransmission is successful, then I hope the government will see the good sense in allowing this retransmission to occur at the local levels so that we can reactivate the local transmitters which were to be closed down by the government under these new arrangements. There does need to be an acceptance that the conversion of the self-help transmitters should happen wherever possible. That is particularly important for business and motels and places like that where there are going to be multiple connections, and it is particularly important for the elderly or others in the community who battle with having to deal with the more complex technology.

It is obvious that the digital signal offers some advantages. Where the signal is available clearly and soundly it offers more choice, better picture quality and better sound quality. But we all know that the digital signal also has some disadvantages. Its range is potentially smaller. There are going to be some people who now get perfectly good analog television reception who will not be able to receive digital. There may be some other people who, fortuitously, will receive a better signal—I acknowledge that—but I think that all of the technical experts say that more people will miss out than are likely to see new benefits. In reality, in examining these sorts of issues, we need to make sure that we do what we can to limit the obstacles to people’s enjoyment of television. In addition, the digital signal is more likely to be affected by adverse weather conditions and, of course, it pixelates and breaks up whenever there are problems with the signal. Those are issues that I think are very important and that people want answers about.

In my own electorate, the analog signal is scheduled to be turned off in half of the electorate in a few months time and in the rest of the electorate in 2013. I appreciate that that is a problem for the electoral boundaries more than it is for those choosing to turn off the signal, but in the city of Gympie, for example, a part of the city will be turned off in 2011 and the balance turned off in 2013. That is going to create some difficulties on the ground. It has been enormously difficult for me as a local member to get accurate and reliable information about what is actually happening in my own electorate. There have been advertisements in the newspapers, which I have read carefully. There are help numbers that you can call. I have called them, and the people have been helpful, but they have not been able to provide answers to most of the questions I have asked. So there was real concern that we are near to a close-down date—in fact, until a few weeks ago I thought that the closedown date might be as soon as 1 July; in other words, only two or three months away—and yet there was no information available to people to help them with the transfer.

I am pleased to say that over the last few weeks the minister’s office has been much more constructive in trying to provide us with the information we need. Previously, I wrote letters to him over many months and got back replies that provided no useful information. I studied his answers to questions in the Senate estimates and found that his answers from various times seemed to conflict with each other. So I welcome the new and more cooperative approach that we are receiving from the minister’s office and hope that thereby we can work through some of those local problems. I now know, for instance, that it seems that the close-down in the majority my electorate will not happen until December this year, so that give us a little bit more time to work through the issues.

I have been struggling to find out what was going to be the source of the programming for the satellite service, which is actually up there and has been operating since December last year, but nobody could tell us which programs were coming from it. We are still battling to get some information about where these programs are going to be sourced from in the future. But if there can be a spirit of cooperation—and I particularly acknowledge the assistance that we are receiving from Emma Dawson, who seems to understand these issues and has been prepared to deal with them in a constructive way—we may well be able to work through them.

From discussing these matters with my colleague the member for Forrest, I am aware that the changeover in western Victoria has gone better than expected. An enormous amount of effort went into it and not all the problems are resolved, but essentially, particularly towards the end, the changeover went reasonably smoothly. I hope that that same level of commitment can be provided in other areas, bearing in mind that western Victoria is comparatively flat countryside. When you move into parts of Queensland, like my own electorate, which are very hilly there are going to be many more complications.

It is important that the government offer a fair deal to all those involved. This legislation will improve the access to the VAST satellite system for some people, and that is a step forward, but there will need to be a better information program available. There will need to be real help for those who are going to be disadvantaged. The public did not ask for this and did not want it. I think they are starting to enjoy the fact that there are extra channels, and they will appreciate the quality, but there is a lot to go through and there will need to be a strong spirit of cooperation if in fact this transition to digital is to happen smoothly and without further difficulties.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Dividend and Other Measures) Bill 2011, a bill which is critical to the future of broadcasting in Australia but also critical to the future of wireless broadband. The reason for that is that the bill essentially does two things. First of all, it amends the regulatory framework for free-to-air digital television services and the switchover to digital-only television. Secondly, it introduces measures which implement the restack of digital television channels so as to free up a block of continuous spectrum which can be auctioned for future use, most likely for the delivery of LTE—long-term evolution—or fourth-generation wireless broadband services.

So it is a bill which is of considerable importance. Unfortunately, this government has form in rushing through legislation in this area without allowing the proper opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny. That was what was done with the predecessor to this bill in 2010: the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2010. Key elements of the policy scheme in that bill were simply dropped and replaced with a direction from the minister to the Australian Communications and Media Authority, and that was an unfortunate thing.

I want to make three key points about this bill in the time available to me tonight. The first is to ask: what does this bill say about the attitudes of this government to wireless as a medium for the delivery of broadband services? Secondly, what assurances are there, I believe it is appropriate to ask, about the way in which the spectrum allocation process will be conducted in respect of this spectrum once the restack has occurred? Thirdly, what are the implications of policy in this area for the transition to digital broadcasting in rural and remote Australia?

Let me turn to the first area that I wish to address. What does this government believe about the importance of wireless as a medium for delivering broadband services? The premise underlying this bill—and it is a premise that on this side of the House we acknowledge and support—is that to realise a material block of spectrum here for reallocation for the purposes of delivering wireless broadband in the future is of very high importance. At the moment the problem is that the blocks of spectrum that will be freed up once analog television ceases operating are not contiguous. They are spread in quite a disparate way. So what will need to happen is that those blocks will be restacked—that is, all of the frequencies used for digital television broadcasting will be brought together, and that will free up a large block of spectrum in the 700-megahertz band. That is a necessary step to take if the utility and value of the spectrum for other purposes, particularly wireless broadband, are to be maximised.

Most commentators in this area say—again, it is a proposition that those of us on this side of the House accept—that wireless and fibre or wireless and fixed have important complementary roles when it comes to the provision of broadband services. But what is puzzling is the conflicted attitude of the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy, to the use of wireless for the delivery of broadband services. Consider, for example, what Senator Conroy had to say about OPEL, the network which was going to deliver wireless broadband services under the Howard government’s Broadband Connect program in a contract announced in mid-2007. Senator Conroy described OPEL as a ‘dog of a product’. This is using, I might say, the same technology at the same speed—12 megabits per second—as is now part of the National Broadband Network between the 93rd and the 97th percentiles. Senator Conroy in an interview on the 7.30 Report in 2007 had this to say about the OPEL network:

If you pick up your cordless phone while you’re using your Internet, your line can drop out. If you use your microwave, your line will drop out.

It was a fear campaign about the use of wireless to deliver broadband. I reiterate that it is the same wireless, the same technology and the same speed as is now embodied within the National Broadband Network proposal to deliver broadband using wireless between the 93rd and 97th percentiles.

But if we go to what the then Leader of the Opposition, Kevin Rudd, had to say in 2007, it is even more interesting. On 19 June 2007 Mr Rudd said: ‘People in regional and rural areas deserve every bit as good a service as those in the big cities. Our fibre-optic-to-the-node plan will offer high-speed broadband to 98 per cent of Australians regardless of where they live. When you look at some of the technical deficiencies in wireless and problems in terms of being able to access speeds of 12 megabits per second using wireless then we believe we have hit upon the right technology.’ It is a technology which they have subsequently abandoned.

There is a real contradiction here. On the one hand we have these criticisms of wireless made for political purposes by the current minister, Senator Conroy, and the former Leader of the Opposition, Mr Rudd, and yet at the same time we have a bill which is proposing complex arrangements to restack the spectrum in the 700 megahertz band so as to free it up for an auction of spectrum which is very likely to be used for the delivery of wireless broadband technologies.

Senator Conroy has continued to run this line, even quite recently, about the deficiencies of wireless. What did he say on 10 August 2010 in relation to the coalition’s policy on the use of wireless as a component for the delivery of broadband? He said that this ignored the advice of industry experts and that:

It will consign Australia to the digital dark ages.

Apparently in the eyes of Senator Conroy wireless is a deficient technology for the delivery of broadband. Indeed, in an interview on 18 August 2010 he described the coalition’s policy as one that would ‘condemn Australians to a wireless network’. We have a deeply conflicted minister and a deeply conflicted government who on the one hand, with this bill, are going through a complex process to restack the spectrum so that it can be auctioned in the expectation of earning several billion dollars because the spectrum will be acquired by mobile telephony operators and others who will use it to deliver fourth-generation, or long-term evolution, wireless broadband while on the other hand they, especially Senator Conroy, are relentlessly criticising wireless as a technology. Senator Conroy just keeps doing it; he just cannot stop himself. It is like some kind of Pavlovian response—mention wireless and there is Conroy jumping up with a criticism. What did he say in Senate estimates on 19 October 2010?

Let me be really clear about this; you cannot monitor somebody 24/7, every second, on an existing fixed wireless network …

In other words, on one hand there is nothing but criticism of wireless as a technology from Senator Conroy but on the other hand there is a bill which is premised on the importance of wireless. Let us be clear and reiterate that the truth is: wireless is a very important component of the delivery of broadband in the future, as is fixed technology including, in an appropriate way, fibre. There is no contention about the importance of fibre. I need hardly remind the House the contention is about the appropriate ownership structure, the appropriate reach of fibre and whether you need to spend $5,000 per premises to deliver fibre to the home, as is the policy of this government.

Let me turn to my second point I want to highlight, which again relates to the National Broadband Network and its implications for the legislative scheme we are considering. We have seen that the tail has wagged the dog when it comes to broadband policy in this country. The tail of trying to make National Broadband Network Company’s business plan as credible as possible has wagged the dog of good telecommunications policy. Already this government has fallen prey to temptation. It has fallen prey to temptation to impose legislative restrictions on the capacities of companies other than NBN Co. to compete in the delivery of broadband.

We have seen this in the so-called cherry-picking provisions. Let us be clear: cherry picking is a notorious code phrase regularly used by monopolists as really meaning ‘we want a free kick’. It is the phrase that Telstra, as this country’s dominant incumbent monopoly in telecommunications, used for many years, and now we have NBN Co. using exactly the same language. There is a real danger that this government will fall prey to temptation when it comes to auctioning off the spectrum which is being rationalised and restacked under this legislation. There is a real danger that this government’s desire to protect the National Broadband Network Co. to maximise that company’s business prospects will affect the way this government thinks about the auction of this spectrum. I simply highlight here the risk that this government may fall prey to the temptation of trying, in whatever ways it can, to nobble the capacity of competitors using the auctioned spectrum to be effective competitors with the National Broadband Network Company. A way in which this government could do that is by rigging the rules of the auction. I simply highlight that risk.

My third point in the brief time that remains available to me is that there are serious concerns about the way in which this government has dealt with the transition to digital as a means of providing continued service in television to people in rural and regional Australia. Of course the transition to digital is inevitable and indeed it is desirable, but it is important that it be managed in an appropriate way to provide continuity of service. For example, it is important that the VAST satellite service should be seen as a safety net rather than as a standard means of delivery of service to hundreds of thousands of households. That is an import concern that those of us on this side of the House have about this bill.

This is a bill which reveals a sharp contradiction in the attitudes of this government about wireless broadband spectrum. I highlight the concern that there is a risk that this government will fall prey to the temptation to rig this auction in a way that will undermine competition to the National Broadband Network Company. I also highlight the importance of maximising the delivery of continued service to rural and regional Australia.

Russell Matheson (Macarthur, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Dividend and Other Measures) Bill 2011 covers many details and measures. However, I would like to focus my attention on the proposed auction of the 694-through to 820-megahertz frequencies of the radio spectrum, known as the digital dividend, when our nation switches from analog to digital television. The auctioning of this 126 megahertz will deliver a revenue windfall to the Treasury. This spectrum will no doubt be highly sought after by mobile telecommunications and internet corporations, as this particular spectrum is ideal for carrying large amounts of data at very high speed over long distances and has the ability to penetrate buildings and other structures. Because of these unique features, this part of the radio spectrum would also be invaluable to the police and emergency services to safeguard public safety, particularly during emergencies and critical incidents when other communications systems are congested or break down.

I strongly believe it is necessary for measures to be included in this bill to ensure that part of the spectrum will be made available to police and emergency services in times of emergency. The peak bodies of Australia’s police, firefighting, ambulance and other emergency services have requested 20 megahertz of the spectrum to be reserved for these disaster situations. The use of this spectrum represents some amazing opportunities for frontline emergency services and could revolutionise the way these services operate. Mr Deputy Speaker, I bring to your attention a fact sheet that was sent to all MPs and senators by the Police Federation of Australia. In this fact sheet they have raised a number of concerns and made comments in relation to reserving part of this spectrum for emergency services personnel. This updates our February alert that the police and emergency services need the spectrum in the 700-megahertz band for digital dividend for public safety. I will read some quotes from the fact sheet:

All of Australia’s Police Commissioners met on 11 March to reaffirm the need for 20 MHz of the available 126 MHz—

which equates to about 16 per cent. The fact sheet continues:

They are supporting the Attorney-General’s proposal to reserve spectrum for these ‘mission critical’ purposes. Australia’s fire authorities and ambulance services are also united behind this proposal.

COAG has agreed that all these emergency services must have seamless, secure and robust communication systems. It’s called inter-operability.

The major telcos, like Telstra, Optus and Vodafone, will be bidding for the spectrum at auction. On behalf of these big three telcos, a misinformation campaign is being run by the Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association (AMTA).

To set the record straight, Motorola—a company with the technical expertise to know what’s what—agrees that our public safety organisations need part of the 700 MHz band ‘for dealing with crisis situations’. Motorola said ‘Australia risked mortgaging its future if emergency services were unable to obtain some of this spectrum’; it ‘is critical to the future of emergency services users’.

Motorola also refutes the claim that other bands like 400 MHz or 800 MHz would do the job for police and emergency services. And they debunk the argument that Australia would be out of step with the Asia Pacific regional plan.

Congestion on telco networks is a serious problem during emergencies. Their communications systems are not designed and built to ‘importance level 1’ which public safety agencies build to. And if any telco forced to provide a service to police, was foreign owned, national security could be compromised.

Finally, police and emergency services have never said they should get spectrum for $0. State and Territory police spend millions of dollars now on their stand alone communications networks. Any charge applying to public safety agencies should take into account their non-commercial use of spectrum for public safety purposes as per the Radiocommunications Act 1992.

We also understand an Access Economics report for A-G’s says that if 20 MHz is reserved, the revenue raised at auction may not fall. The spectrum is rare and valuable and may become more so.

The Police Federation of Australia are surely an agency that we should all be listening to. This is an issue of national significance, and I hope the minister is listening. We can only assume that the sale of the digital dividend is being used for promotional purposes, probably to try to return the budget to surplus in 2012-13.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In rising to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Dividend and Other Measures) Bill 2011, I raise serious concerns about the digital switch-over in south-west Victoria which is due to take place in early May. Like many other government programs that we are bearing witness to in south-west Victoria, this one looks as if it is going to be another rolled-gold disaster. It seems quite clear that the people are not ready and the groundwork has not been done. The shadow minister for communications has written to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy on this, and his reply makes no sense. So tonight I am calling for the digital switch-over in south-west Victoria to be postponed so more work can be done with local communities and residents to get them ready for the so-called digital switch-over, which—let us be honest and call a spade a spade—is the analog switch-off. That is what it is. It is people having their analog TVs turned off.

Those people need to be prepared so that they can move to digital—and they are not. Let me read an email that I have received:

Dear Mr Tehan,

I am writing to you for some assistance in the matter of such poor reception in the Cobden area. We feel disadvantaged in this, as most towns seem to have better reception than us. We are seeing texts to the editor in the local papers about problems with pixilation. Many TV viewers between Terang and the southern coast have been experiencing pixilation on TV signals. We also have issues regarding upgrading of antenna systems. It seems that when you switch to digital, if you need to upgrade your antenna system and you are a pensioner or a gold card holder, you will not get assistance.

These problems and many more need to be addressed before the so-called digital switch-over or—let us call a spade a spade—the analog switch-off takes place. This is going to impact people in my electorate. They already have poor mobile telecommunications reception and now they are going to have poor TV reception. They are going to be left with a double-whammy. This government is failing to listen and is failing to take account of this extremely serious problem. The digital switch-over in south-west Victoria needs to be postponed. More effort needs to be made to make sure that people, especially those who are less well off, are in a position to be able to deal with the digital transfer, with the analog TV being turned off.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in reply—I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Dividend and Other Measures) Bill 2011. After its introduction on 24 February the bill was referred to the Senate Environment, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee for inquiry. The committee tabled their report in the Senate on 22 March and recommended that the bill be passed.

The bill introduces amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the Radiocommunications Act 1992 that are crucial to effectively implement the restack of digital television channels needed to realise the digital dividend. On 24 June the government announced that 126 megahertz of broadcasting spectrum would be released as a digital dividend, resulting from the switch-off of analog television services.

The switch to digital-only television will be completed in Australia by 31 December 2013, releasing the channels used for analog television. The digital dividend will be released as a contiguous block of spectrum in the ultra high frequency, or UHF, band. The UHF spectrum currently used for broadcasting services is highly valued for delivering wireless communication services, including superfast mobile broadband.

The government aims to auction the digital dividend spectrum in the second half of 2012. In order to release this highly valued spectrum, digital broadcasting services will need to be relocated or restacked out of the digital dividend spectrum and organised more efficiently within the remaining spectrum. The government intends that the digital dividend spectrum be cleared by 31 December 2014.

While ACMA has some scope under its existing powers to commence digital channel restack planning, the bill will give it more flexible planning powers and allow the restack of digital television channels to occur in a timely and efficient manner. The proposed amendments will also improve the regulatory framework for digital switch-over and the delivery of both terrestrial and satellite free-to-air digital television services.

During the Senate committee’s inquiry into the bill some submitters raised concerns that the bill favoured satellite conversion over terrestrial conversion. The government recognises that both terrestrial infrastructure and a satellite service are required to provide all Australians with access to the full range of digital television services. Government policy does not advocate a preferred method of digital television reception.

The bill will amend the conditional access scheme to provide commercial broadcasters in remote Western Australia with the opportunity to roll out their terrestrial digital television services before viewers they intend to serve can access the VAST service. This will protect the integrity of the larger terrestrial television markets in remote Western Australia and avoid the need for viewers to purchase satellite reception equipment unnecessarily.

The bill will also allow viewers access to the VAST service after a specified time following switch-over in their licence area where VAST provides a superior number of commercial digital television services, including digital multichannels, than are otherwise available terrestrially in their area. These provisions will provide the commercial broadcasters with the incentive to roll out all of their terrestrial digital television services before viewers in the area receive automatic access to VAST.

Although commercial and national broadcasters can apply to the minister for exemption from converting terrestrial digital transmission sites under very limited circumstances, it is important to note that this exemption is not automatic. It is within the minister’s discretion, having regard to the statutory criteria outlined in the bill, to grant a broadcaster an exemption. An exemption cannot be granted where a service has already commenced transmitting in digital. These provisions are intended to, amongst other things, minimise situations where consumers need to purchase both satellite and terrestrial reception equipment to receive the full suite of digital television channels.

This bill will progress the government’s digital television switch-over program and will help realise the digital dividend, bringing significant social and economic benefits to all Australians. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.