Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Dividend and Other Measures) Bill 2011 introduces amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, the Radiocommunications Act 1992, the Australian Communications and Media Authority Act 2005 and the Copyright Act 1968. The bill has two main elements: to introduce measures to effectively implement a reorganisation of digital television channels to realise the digital dividend—that is addressed in schedule 1—and to amend the regulatory framework for free-to-air digital television services provided on the VAST satellite service, and the switch-over to digital-only television, which is addressed in schedule 2.

I will begin with schedule 1, dealing with the digital dividend. As a result of the switch to digital-only television, the government plans to release spectrum—known as the digital dividend—in the frequency range 694 to 820 megahertz inclusive. Digital television switch-over will be completed in Australia, it is intended, by 31 December 2013. The UHF spectrum currently used for broadcasting services is highly valued for delivering wireless communication services including super fast mobile broadband. The government has indicated that it aims to auction the digital dividend spectrum in the second half of 2012.

In order to free up this highly valued spectrum, broadcasting services will need to be relocated out of the identified digital dividend spectrum and reorganised more efficiently within the remaining broadcasting spectrum. This process is known as restacking. To assist the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, to plan and implement the restack of broadcasting services as efficiently as possible, the government proposes amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act and the Radiocommunications Act to modify the existing planning process for television broadcasting services.

While the coalition understands the need to provide ACMA with greater regulatory flexibility during the restack process, we do have some concerns around the realignment of the existing licence areas into new television licence area plans. The issue is with the extensive powers that the bill gives the minister to direct ACMA to make or vary a television licence area plan for a particular area. We note that it is not intended that every television licence area plan reflect all the characteristics of each of the existing licence plans and we are concerned that there is scope for rescuing of resources between the respective broadcasters. During the recent Senate inquiry the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy testified that this bill made ‘no express prohibition on ACMA allotting broadcasting spectrum in whatever way it sees fit’.

We note with concern that this means ACMA could have the discretionary power to allocate greater than two channels per television licence area plan to a more powerful broadcaster to the detriment of smaller players in the market. Despite departmental reassurances that the intention ‘is not to disadvantage any broadcaster and for ACMA to assign channels of equivalent utility to all broadcasters in a particular area’, the coalition remains concerned that, despite the best intentions, the provisions in the bill include broad and unchecked powers.

I will now move to schedule 2, which deals with the switch from analog television to digital. Members will be aware that the switch to digital is occurring on a region-by-region basis with Mildura and regional South Australia completed and regional Victoria and regional Queensland scheduled for the first and second half of 2011. The coalition has registered, both in this place and elsewhere on a number of occasions, its real concern with the government’s handling of the switchover, particularly in regional and remote Australia. In fact my colleague the member for Casey in May last year warned this House that the government’s inadequate planning and preparation would have significant consequences for consumers particularly in regional and remote Australia.

Those warnings seem to have fallen on deaf ears and here the coalition finds itself again urging the government to look at the problems with their implementation of the rollout of digital television. As an overall approach the government has decided to depart from the principle that wherever analog terrestrial television channels are transmitted a digital terrestrial transmission facility should be established. This means that many people will need to switch from terrestrial television reception to satellite reception. The government has decided to fund a satellite based service called VAST, at a cost of $375 million over 12 years, and has decided to discontinue funding support to local communities, typically local councils, to provide self-help retransmission services. In a paper provided to the consumer expert group meeting held on 26 August 2010 it was stated:

There are 680 self-help sites in Australia and broadcasters will convert a number of these to digital. However, about 570 sites will not be converted and will cease operation. This will affect around 127,000 households in over 700 communities. Households in these areas may need to install VAST satellite equipment in order to watch free-to-air television.

In its submission to the exposure draft of this bill, the Local Government Association of Queensland stated:

… converting many if not most existing analogue self-help retransmission sites to digital is a more convenient and cost effective way to approach a conversion to digital TV …

In Queensland, 56 councils have retransmitted analog television services to rural and remote communities for over 20 years. This convenient and low-cost service provides the simplicity of the delivery of major city television services without the need for individual satellite dishes and related equipment. The government acknowledges that there is a cost for consumers to move from terrestrial coverage to satellite and to that end they have developed a satellite subsidy scheme that reimburses eligible households to assist them with the cost of converting. The coalition urges the government to use the same rationale for communities wishing to establish their own digital terrestrial self-help transmission.

As put to the recent Senate inquiry by Mr Hoffman, the general manager of the Local Government Association of Queensland:

It has been acknowledged by the department that it is technically possible to undertake the self-help terrestrial retransmission. In fact, the department has advised a cost potentially between $110,000 and $270,000.

Allowing the subsidy to be pooled to create a lump sum would assist the local councils involved to upgrade their facilities to digital terrestrial service without requiring further government funding. This would represent a more flexible and constructive use of the satellite subsidy scheme amount already set aside as well as having the potential to substantially reduce the added household expenses associated with the conversion to satellite television. To date the government regrettably has refused the many sensible and practical requests to pool the existing satellite subsidy scheme, and the coalition urges the government to be flexible and allow councils the right to decide, in consultation with their communities, whether converting retransmission sites is a better option for them.

Further practical requests with respect to the satellite subsidy scheme have been made and ignored by the government. The coalition urges the government to consider providing subsidies for small businesses to transition to terrestrial digital television in remote Australia. The VAST satellite subsidy scheme only applies to private residential households not to hospitals, nursing homes, hotels or caravan parks or indeed any other businesses which might provide television services to their customers or guests. The government does not seem to have considered the likely substantial, if not prohibitive, cost that may otherwise have to be incurred by small businesses to procure digital television transmission. The cost to these small businesses to install multiple VAST service units is open ended and this is particularly relevant to towns and communities that rely heavily on tourism as a source of income activity. When giving evidence to the recent Senate enquiry, Mr Arnold, the manager of the Remote Area Planning and Development Board in Queensland said:

We are trying to assess on behalf of individual tourism businesses the likely cost. Some of them who have looked into it are estimating it is a substantial cost—$10,000 to $20,000.

In a statement to the Senate committee examining the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2010, the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy stated that broadcasters who have undertaken to convert a transmission site from analog to digital or to establish new digital transmission facilities, or gap fillers, are required to have the site active six months before the digital switchover date. As the department rightly pointed out, this six-month time frame is critical in providing residents and businesses with the necessary time to ensure they have adequate digital television reception and to properly convert their current equipment and free-to-air television aerials. The government did not observe the six-month rule in the case of the initial Sunraysia analog switch-off or the South Australian switch-off—nor did they make it for the Victorian switch-off, due on 5 May. The coalition will be watching closely to see that the disallowable instrument the minister needs to lodge to switch off regional Queensland ensures that there will be six months between the proposed switch-off date and when the last broadcaster owned and controlled digital terrestrial transmission facility is commissioned.

Turning to the specifics of schedule 2 of the bill, the coalition acknowledges that there are measures related to the VAST service in the bill that are critical to the rollout of digital television in Western Australia. We support ensuring that commercial broadcasters in remote and regional Western Australia are given the same opportunity to build the necessary infrastructure to deliver the full suite of digital television channels via terrestrial broadcast before allowing viewers in those regions to access the satellite service, thereby protecting the local terrestrial broadcast market.

However, we do wish to record our reservations with items 47, 50, 51 and 52 in the bill. These measures allow broadcasters to seek exemptions from existing obligations to roll out digital terrestrial facilities in certain circumstances and allow the minister to exempt applications from the ABC or SBS to roll out digital terrestrial facilities of their own in certain circumstances. Under these exemptions, any commercial broadcaster, the ABC or SBS could request exemption from providing digital terrestrial transmission facilities within their ACMA conversion scheme to communities of less than 500.

Under the current provisions of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, broadcasters have no choice but to convert their analog facilities in such a way that provides for the same terrestrial signal coverage. The minister’s office has advised the coalition that, left unchanged, this may result in what they describe as ‘mixed reception outcomes’, where viewers need to install both terrestrial and satellite digital reception equipment to access the full range of digital television services. If this is the intention of the proposed change, the coalition is concerned that the bill actually goes well beyond this and could result in broadcasters applying for exemptions from upgrading or installing digital terrestrial services, especially in remote areas.

In conclusion, the coalition acknowledges that the passage of the legislation is necessary to continue to implement the government’s digital switchover policy, especially in regional and remote Western Australia. However, the coalition strongly urges the government to consider amending the bill consistent with the concerns that I have expressed. While there are no direct measures contained in this bill that would have any impact on the rollout of the satellite subsidy scheme or the six-month rule, the coalition asks the government to consider the comments that I and my colleagues, and indeed local communities, particularly in Queensland, have made, and to adjust the scheme to ensure smooth implementation of the switch to digital television, particularly for regional and remote Australians. It surely must be evident to the government, as it is to communities in regional Australia, that, notwithstanding the technical functionality and capacity of satellite services, it is clearly preferable where it is at all possible for digital services to be retransmitted terrestrially. To support local communities in doing that—enabling the VAST satellite subsidy to be pooled so that they have the wherewithal to convert to digital retransmission—is manifestly good policy, is in the public interest and would both improve the technical reliability of the service and reduce the cost of receiving the new digital services for householders in those regions.

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

The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Dividend and Other Measures) Bill 2011 will amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the Radiocommunications Act 1992 to provide the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, with improved planning and enforcement powers to implant the reorganisation of digital television channels as required. The bill will also allow for the realisation of a digital dividend of spectrum by 31 December 2014. I will go into what that means in the broader context a little later.

The bill will ensure the equalisation of television services for regional, rural and remote Australia, allowing all Australians the same degree of access to television channels. Allowing for regional Australians to have access to the same television channels as the rest of us is a key outcome of the government’s switchover program. The bill will enable viewers in remote and regional areas to access the VAST satellite communications service to receive the full suite of digital television channels. Providing equal access to television services to all Australians, regardless of where they live, is extremely important, and its importance has been known for some time. Before I came down to make my contribution I looked up the report of a committee inquiry that I participated in back in 2006, the House Standing Committee on Communications, Information Technology and the Arts inquiry into the update of digital television in Australia. Belatedly, I got my highlighter out and flipped through that document. I want to draw your attention to a couple of things I have noted. The report noted:

Not since the shift from black and white to colour has so radical a change in the nature of Australian television taken place. The ‘revolution’ is the introduction of digital television … and the planned switch-off of current analogue services.

DTV offers clearer, sharper pictures in widescreen format. As it requires less spectrum to broadcast, it also offers opportunities for many more channels, and additional features such as interactivity and datacasting.

In terms of dealing with digital television, the report says:

[Digital television] is a new television technology that is replacing existing analogue free-to-air television in Australia.

[Digital television] delivers television signals in a substantially more efficient way than the current analogue system. With analogue broadcasting, the signal is in the form of a continuous wave, whereas digital broadcasting signals are in the form of discrete bits of information.

Analogue television channels can transmit one continuous stream of programming … DTV is a broadcasting transmission system which uses digital modulation techniques to transmit television programs.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You don’t sound convincing, Chris!

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

I am getting to that. I am going to win you over yet, Luke. The report says:

Through compression technology, [digital television] broadcasting transmitters have the capacity to transmit an [high definition TV] picture, or to transmit multiple programs at the same time using the same amount of bandwidth as used for analogue television.

It concludes that digital television will allow for making available residual transmission capacity. And that is what has occurred.

I am glad the member for Cowper intervened. He was not on that particular committee, but I recall one of his colleagues who was on the committee and who sits on the opposition frontbench took the view that under no circumstances could she ever see analogue television been switched off. Obviously a lot of water has gone under the bridge since 1976, and we have certainly progressed a long way to deliver digital television in a meaningful way to the Australian public. But we are going further. This is where the member for Cowper would probably want to get up and support this piece of legislation. He represents a rural seat—including my parents, who are in that seat—and his constituents will all benefit from the application of digital television. They will see the vast array of new programming available and they will have the ability to see it in high definition. We are certainly moving with the rest of the world in being able to make these services available to the Australian people.

The bill also provides for a very important aspect—that is, the freeing up of some of the residual spectrum. That is scheduled to be auctioned in 2014. That spectrum is obviously very valuable space. It is something that was previously used through the analog transmission. It is now capable of being used for other activities in servicing the community. In fact, there are 106 megahertz of spectrum which has been freed up in what is known as the 700 band. It is an extraordinarily interesting band. This particular spectrum can carry large amounts of information, of data, at high speeds over very long distances and can penetrate buildings. As I have had the opportunity to have a discussion on the odd occasion with the minister, I have indicated to him that this is the very sort of capacity that both the police and the emergency services need to safeguard public interest, particularly during critical instances when communications systems are often congested or break down. I would highlight the experiences that we endured during the Victorian bushfires, the recent floods in Queensland, Cyclone Yasi and what occurred to our colleagues in Christchurch, where their 000 services went down for a period of five hours.

Police and emergency services need access to an appropriate spectrum. I am not saying how much, but I know each of the police commissioners has sought to articulate that particular position. I know they have written to the government seeking that 20 megahertz be quarantined in that 700 spectrum for the use of police and emergency services. At the moment our ambos, our firefighters and our police all communicate on the 400 megahertz spectrum. That is a spectrum limited to voice command, voice communication. It certainly is not an area of spectrum that is going to be capable of meeting the modern needs of law enforcement or emergency services. When you have to dispatch people to a particular scene or incident and, for instance, you have to provide them with data or provide them with maps, provide them with video streaming, the 400 megahertz spectrum will not do any more than what a police walkie-talkie does, quite frankly.

As I said, I know each of the police commissioners has made this matter known to government. Indeed, only recently Commissioner Negus of the Australian Federal Police, when he spoke to parliamentary officers of the law enforcement committee, indicated the AFP’s significant interest in having a measure of the 700 band reserved for discrete communications of police and emergency services. If this does not occur the telecommunication systems—presumably operated by companies such as Optus, Telstra, Vodafone—would all be out there and vying for this valuable piece of digital real estate, if I can put it that way. I just do not see that the police and the various fire and emergency services would be in a position to compete against those particular power players for that valuable spectrum. That is why the position has been put that a certain part of that spectrum should be quarantined from sale or auction.

I know this is not what occurs in this bill but, should the government eventually reserve part of the spectrum for police and emergency services, I suggest that it be done on the basis that requirements are made for national policing and that every state and territory police service, together with the AFP, and their respective emergency services counterparts, establish a fully functioning network within five years or that such spectrum should revert to the Commonwealth for commercial disposal—in other words, a provision of ‘use it or lose it’.

Fast, reliable communication and data exchange is needed by our emergency services personnel in order to provide them with the tools to do a job which is often in very, very difficult circumstances. Our police and emergency services are duty bound to protect the community at times of threats, emergencies, natural disasters and crises, and we all pay tribute to them in this place and say what an extraordinary job they do. But one of the things we also have to have central in our minds is that it is okay to give accolades to the police and emergency services but we must also make sure that, when they go and do the job that we want them to do on behalf of our community, we equip them with the appropriate resources and technologies to do just that. It is in the interests of community safety and also the safety of the 350,000 ambulance, police and fire officers and state emergency service personnel, for them to be equipped with such technology. Relying on a commercial provider does not meet the need of our public safety agencies, particularly during times of high usage or high threat, when the services of these providers could be congested to the point of failure.

Internationally, the switch to digital television has also resulted in a freeing up of additional spectrum. I think it is important for this place to note that both the European Union and the USA have targeted the 700-megahertz band for public safety and police communications networks—what I understand is referred to in the US as the D Block communications system. The Obama administration in the US has recently lent its full support to a proposal to give a valuable chunk of their radio waves to the emergency services and to build a national wireless high-speed broadband network for public safety. I think this is indicative of the way we are going with the application of technology—not simply in our viewing technology and how we can use it to the benefit of our communities but also in how we apply it for the issues of police, emergency services, law enforcement, and rescue and disaster response.

If we are going to be conscious of providing our police with the tools that they need for protecting society, we need to ensure that they have present technologies and emerging technologies capable of being used in their communication networks. It would a great shame, in my humble opinion, if we found that a young person with a smartphone has more advanced and better communications than the capability of police officers out there carrying their two-way radios and seeking to protect the Australian community.

As I indicated, I have raised these matters with the minister and he is very alive to my concerns in those areas. What I have sought to do from the outset is to show that we took what was identified in 2006, when people opposite were saying that the analog system would never be turned off, and moved this forward. We have taken the nation into the digital age not only in digital television but more recently in digital radio. We are showing the leadership that is required, and we will continue to do that. So I suggest to my colleagues opposite, including the member for Cowper, that they get on board, support this piece of legislation, support the member for Cowper’s community and, more importantly, support my parents.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for your contribution. The question is that the bill be now read a second time. I call the member for Cowper—probably in response as well.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I would certainly hasten to add that the member for Fowler can sit in this place in the full knowledge that his parents are very well represented, and I will certainly work hard to ensure that they stay that way. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Dividend and Other Measures) Bill 2011. The bill is presented in two schedules, the first of which introduces measures to release the so-called digital dividend. The second is to amend the regulatory framework overseeing the services provided on the VAST satellite network as part of the switchover from analog to digital television.

Schedule 1 amends the Broadcasting Services Act to implement a reorganisation of spectrum management in order to release spectrum within the frequency range of 694 to 820 megahertz, which is referred to as the ‘digital dividend.’ Spectrum within the digital dividend is highly valued by the broadcasting and mobile telephony industries.

According to the government’s green paper on managing the digital dividend, the spectrum will allow the implementation of fourth-generation mobile wireless networks using Long Term Evolution technology and mobile WiMAX. These technologies will theoretically provide peak data speeds of 100 megabits per second and higher. By accessing the spectrum, telecommunications companies will be able to provide high-speed services to consumers and households whilst allowing those consumers the flexibility to stay mobile.

This legislation gives the Australian Communications and Media Authority improved planning and enforcement powers to rearrange digital television channels, a process known as restacking. The actual digital dividend will be released by restacking the current bands of spectrum allocated to analog television, which are being converted to digital television through the digital television switchover. Currently the frequency band between 582 and 820 megahertz is dedicated to the Ultra High Frequency band V, which is used to broadcast analog television. Switching over from analog to digital television frees this band by converting the broadcast of television to lower bands of spectrum.

The government aims to auction the digital dividend spectrum in the second half of 2012, and the actual spectrum will become available after all broadcasting centres are converted to digital television in December 2013. ACMA will be authorised to restack television services by realigning television licence area plans to new areas and within lower bands of the spectrum. The new license area plans will be defined by ACMA through legislative instrument and would specify the channels available in particular areas of Australia to provide television broadcasting services.

However, the legislation also gives the minister the power to issue a written direction to ACMA about the exercise of its powers to make or vary television licence area plans and to impose an obligation on ACMA to comply with such a direction. Ministerial directions to ACMA will be legislative instruments and tabled in parliament, but the explanatory memorandum to this bill makes it clear that the instruments will not be disallowable. This means that parliament will be able to read the ministerial direction to ACMA but will not be able to debate and vote on its content.

The coalition has some concerns with this approach. The legislation today is the very last chance this parliament will have to meaningfully debate the release of the digital dividend and restacking television broadcasts. At the moment, we are seeing one of the largest reorganisations of telecommunications services in Australian history through the digital dividend release and the National Broadband Network. Yet the government is operating in the dark, whilst industry operates in an environment of regulatory uncertainty.

The coalition is concerned that making ACMA’s management of the digital dividend subject to a non-disallowable ministerial direction only increases the uncertainty that is preventing the Australian telecommunications sector from making confident investment decisions. The NBN rollout is an example. As Pat Tapper, CEO of Internode, Australia’s largest privately-owned ISP, said in the Australian newspaper three weeks ago:

“The NBN is in the paper every day, but when you try to nut down on it and figure out what’s happening from what’s being said, there’s no path you can be confident in because it’s being planned and rolled out incrementally. There are a lot of variables in that.”

As is evident from submissions made to the Senate inquiry on this legislation, broadcasters have already been subject to uncertain ministerial directions concerning the digital dividend. The minister issued a direction to ACMA on 9 July 2010 for the purposes of providing policy guidance on the government’s digital dividend objectives. The direction was rushed through just before parliament was dissolved last year for the election. There was no opportunity for parliament to consider the direction and its importance. As Broadcast Australia says in their submission to the Senate inquiry, the direction issued on 9 July 2010:

… is shaping the future of all free-to-air broadcasting for decades to come.

Broadcast Australia argues:

… the Directions of 9 July should be inserted into the Broadcasting Services Act …

and says:

We still believe this would be the desirable way to allow Parliament to oversight and consider such important planning principles before their implications become a “fait accomplis”.

The Local Government Association of Queensland notes in their submission:

… the major policy issues concerning this enormous change in broadcasting and mobile voice and data services across Australia have been enshrined in little publicised Ministerial Directions of 9 July 2010. These … Objectives which, among other things may determine whether most areas of regional Queensland ever get digital radio, or whether a 6^th free-to-air TV terrestrial frequency will be rolled out anywhere in regional Queensland deserve some debate at the Australian Parliament level.

Under this legislation, there is nothing to prevent the minister from issuing directions to ACMA that again shape the direction of broadcasting without any parliamentary oversight. The coalition is concerned that such an approach could add to the regulatory uncertainty already faced by the industry. Parliament would ideally be able to scrutinise future ministerial directions to ensure that any direction is in the best interests of consumers without placing unnecessary burdens on the industry. The coalition will certainly monitor any directions made by the current minister under this legislation and will revisit the issue of non-disallowable instruments as the need arises.

Schedule 2 to this bill introduces amendments to the legislative framework which the new VAST satellite service operates under. In particular, the amendments will allow broadcasters to request an exemption from providing digital terrestrial transmission facilities within the schemes operated by ACMA for broadcasters to convert their services to digital. Broadcasters will be able to request an exemption for any communication area, regardless of its population, which is not currently serviced by an analog terrestrial broadcast by local free-to-air entities. However, the minister is not authorised to grant an exemption unless the area contains fewer than 500 people in residence. The legislation provides that an exemption would need approval by the minister and would then be tabled as a legislative instrument in parliament.

The coalition is concerned that these provisions will allow commercial stations to refuse to provide television coverage to areas considered unprofitable. However, the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has advised that the legislation in practice will only affect those areas receiving a broadcast solely from the ABC. According to the department, the provisions will allow the minister, on a case-by-case basis, to decide which areas can be excluded where an ABC tower is providing the ABC as the sole channel for the area and where VAST replicates what is currently available. This can be potentially applied to the 98 areas across Australia that are only served by an ABC tower. The VAST service will provide a superior television broadcast to these areas because it will contain all 16 digital channels, including the ABC which the viewer would currently receive. Viewers will also be provided with rolling local news channels, providing local news content from each regional broadcasting centre in Australia. As such, viewers in areas that currently only receive the ABC will be provided with an improved service after connecting to VAST. The coalition will be watching closely to ensure that the legislation delivers an appropriate outcome for viewers.

We believe that the government must do all it can to ensure that people are able to access terrestrial television regardless of where they live. The VAST satellite service should only be seen as a service of last resort. Regional groups and local councils across Australia have concerns about the quality of service provided by VAST and the fact that many of their communities will not receive a terrestrial digital signal. Broadcast Australia submitted to the Senate inquiry that there was a misconception that the VAST service provides a comparable level of service to terrestrial television. Broadcast Australia said that:

… receiving free-to-air digital TV channels (DTH) from the VAST satellite is more costly and offers less utility and convenience to homes than local terrestrial reception of those same channels.

Currently there are many regional and remote communities in Australia receiving television via self-help sites, which are retransmission sites operated by local councils or community groups. These sites receive a broadcast—either terrestrially from the nearest major centre or through the Aurora satellite service—and then rebroadcast the terrestrial signal in the local community. As television broadcasting is switched over to digital, these sites will require upgrading in order to receive and broadcast a new digital signal. According to the department, broadcasters have made a candidate list of 57 communities which will be provided with a terrestrial digital signal.

A further 34 regional communities currently relying on self-help sites will receive a digital signal through gap fillers, which will consist of either a stronger digital signal from nearby centres or a signal provided by the installation of signal boosters. But, according to the department, there are 16 regional communities relying on self-help sites that will not be upgraded to digital or receive a gap filler. These communities will be forced onto the VAST service. There are also 374 communities, classed as remote and which receive limited terrestrial signals, that will be forced onto the VAST service.

I attended a forum recently, with the member for Dawson, at Dingo Beach in the Whitsundays region of Queensland. Dingo Beach is a small community that receives terrestrial television through a self-help tower and is not a candidate for conversion to digital. It is proposed by the government that Dingo Beach will be provided with a VAST service. The community attending that forum unanimously wanted to receive reliable terrestrial television so that they could get the relevant local content; however, unfortunately to this point the government has been unwilling to accede to the request for the provision of a terrestrial service to Dingo Beach.

There are common issues across regional areas that will not be upgraded to digital. For instance, the Remote Area Planning and Development Board of Queensland lists three main concerns with the VAST service. Firstly, satellite television does not allow the portability of terrestrial television, which is preferred by tourists and travellers. Unless they have expensive satellite systems, caravan tourists in particular will not be able to receive a signal when travelling through areas where there is no terrestrial coverage.

Secondly, households that install a VAST satellite will be forced to move the satellite when vacating the home if they want to ensure satellite coverage in a new home without purchasing new satellite equipment. Thirdly, the government’s satellite subsidy scheme does not cover businesses important to regional areas such as hotels, motels, resorts and shops. Businesses struggling with tight margins and problems such as increasing electricity costs will find it difficult to pay the $10,000 to $20,000 that it will cost some businesses to convert.

For these reasons, the coalition has asked the government to complete an analysis of the costs and benefits of pooling the subsidy scheme available for households within each community that is currently serviced by a self-help site. The opposition strongly urges the government to consider this because many communities would certainly prefer that option. It may in the end turn out cheaper, depending on the size of the community involved.

Instead of providing the subsidy direct to households, the funding could be pooled and used to upgrade retransmission sites, allowing digital terrestrial broadcasts to the local community. The coalition recognises that in some sites an upgrade to digital simply would not be possible. These are the areas where VAST is an appropriate service to implement, when all other avenues have been exhausted.

The bill provides a means for broadcasters to rely on VAST without necessarily exhausting all avenues. The legislation as drafted provides much scope for broadcasters to refuse an upgrade, with little guidance on how this decision should be determined. The conversion to digital is a very important issue, and the coalition certainly is concerned about the prospect that some viewers in regional and remote areas may not get equity of access to high-quality digital television. It is a vitally important issue for regional and rural Australia that people be part of the digital switchover in the most efficient and most effective way. We are certainly concerned about the impact of costs on small business. The satellite subsidy scheme also only provides for the conversion of the first television, so each additional set-top box is 100 per cent at the cost of the household, which is a significant cost for some households. The coalition certainly is supportive of the move from analog to digital and will be watching the government’s performance in this area very carefully.

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will address some of the issues raised by the member for Wentworth and the member for Cowper and the concerns they say they have with the operation of the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Dividend and Other Measures) Bill 2011. If you want to look at a party that addresses digital black spots, look at us on this side of the House. In fact, almost a year ago it was the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy who announced a landmark agreement about VAST—a landmark agreement that would provide digital TV services to viewers who could not receive terrestrial digital TV. What Senator Conroy said was very true—that is, that we are the party, the government, of equality of opportunity when it comes to the cities and the regions. He said:

This is a significant breakthrough in the provision of digital TV services to all Australians, particularly for those in remote and regional areas who for many years have had to put up with less choice than people in the cities.

The new VAST service will make available to all parts of Australia, for the first time, the same number of channels as those in the capital cities. So if you want to talk about equality of opportunity, if you want to talk about what is being done to ensure that viewers in regional and remote areas of Australia have the same opportunities as everyone else in the digital environment, you need look no further than us.

The member for Cowper comes in here and talks about this digital switchover, the digital dividend being conducted in Australia, as being rife with uncertainty. What absolute rubbish! I defy anyone in this place to find me a better strategy being executed anywhere else in the world. Where is the regulatory uncertainty? You will find that the fulfilment of this digital dividend has the support of all aspects of the communications sector, from broadcasters to telco operators, to carriage service providers—the list goes on.

It was recognised as early as January 2008, more than three years ago, that there would be an issue with the switchover timetable regarding black spots in self-help retransmission sites. So what did the government do? This government convinced broadcasters to upgrade more than 100 self-help sites to digital capacity. So it is not the first time that we have addressed this issue for the benefit of rural and remote constituents.

This proposed legislation forms part of one of the most significant developments in Australia’s digital economy and it is an integral step in the process of planning and enforcing the restack of certain broadcasting services that currently occupy what we call the digital dividend spectrum—the analog television spectrum which, when liberated, is going to enable all Australians to utilise the highest quality future communications services. As I said, when we look at developments in all aspects of this government’s ICT agenda that have led to this point—including the digital dividend consultation, the switchover, the National Broadband Network, the upcoming convergence review and the work being done by ACMA in its role of regulating the process of radio communications management, the auction of the digital dividend spectrum and the renewal of existing spectrum licences, which we legislated for in this place late last year with amendments to the Radiocommunications Act—one quickly realises there is a guiding goal towards which every agency, department policy maker and, may I say, element of the telecommunications and broadcasting sector is working. That goal is to maximise the benefits of the digital economy for all Australians: for all individuals, irrespective of where they live or work; in the utilisation of ICT by all sectors in our economy, both government and private and both large enterprises and small businesses; and for all types of players, such as the carriers, carriage service providers, ISPs, broadcasters and other innovators.

The spectrum path that is being pursued by this government is a fabulous opportunity for Australia to enjoy significant wireless broadband services, utilising the sweet spot of that liberated spectrum as a complement to the NBN. In fact, the two work hand in hand. You would think, given this, that it would be something that those opposite would be embracing, would be speaking on and would be welcoming. But, no, those opposite only have one strategic direction in relation to ICT, as we all know—that is, to destroy the NBN. On that point, I turn to the coalition’s policy platform on the digital dividend, and I use the term ‘policy platform’ loosely, because it is a bit hard to find any actual semblance of it. When you do look at their policy which they took to the last election, surprise! It is still their policy today. You look for some semblance of spectrum management, something that has to do with the digital dividend, and you actually do not find very much. You find statements such as:

To assist in achieving the most rapid possible rollout of services, the Coalition will take a proactive approach to spectrum allocation to support its broadband initiatives.

You actually do not see anything in that policy about the concerns that members opposite have brought here today. You do not see a single thing in that policy about rural and remote Australia having quality of access to digital television channels. You do not see anything in that policy about a strategic direction when it comes to fulfilling the digital dividend. It was so important to them that it does not even rate a mention in what is still their policy.

At this point I think it is very useful to look at the context of both this bill and the broader digital dividend framework, the fact that spectrum is a finite resource that is used but not consumed and the ways in which we regulate spectrum. We regulate spectrum to avoid interference. We want to ensure that appropriate rent is paid for a scare resource and we want to provide certainty for existing and future users of that valuable space. The objects of the Radiocommunications Act are very instructive on this point, and they include maximising, through the efficient allocation and use of the spectrum, the overall public benefit derived from using the radcomms spectrum. There are lots of public benefits at stake here and lots of public benefits in the decisions governments will make in fulfilling those statutory objects. We as a government—we as a legislature as a whole, in fact—bear those statutory obligations. Looking at the overall public benefit, I want to remind all of us here that one of the public benefits is to maximise the financial return on this spectrum. That is why we seek a return on this scare resource through a simultaneous multiple-round ascending auction process. In particular, I want to reiterate that we only get one opportunity to do this. We only get one bite at what is called the ‘sweet spot’ of the spectrum—one opportunity to get it correct.

Turning to the restack and the nature of this bill and its role in the realisation of the digital dividend, this government took the bold decision to put 126 megahertz of the 700 megahertz band into the digital dividend, using a process that is internationally harmonised with our neighbouring countries. The services that will be offered are significant and exciting, and we are already seeing Telstra trialling some of those services and looking to roll out wireless services of similar great potential. I want to turn to the process and the green paper that the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy released and consulted on which gave rise to the current strategy that is being pursued. In June last year, when he announced the size and location of the digital dividend, the minister noted:

Wireless broadband is an important complement to fixed line services, and the release of this spectrum will enhance and support the services that will be enabled by the Government’s investment in the National Broadband Network.

Extensive consultation was undertaken on the green paper, and what the minister announced reflects the importance of the decision that was made again—only having one chance to get this right when the liberated spectrum is reallocated. The release is in a contiguous block in the UHF band, and a contiguous dividend means substantial connectivity and productivity benefits will flow. It avoids what engineers will call the ‘swiss cheese’ problem: irregular holes in the spectrum that are not suitable for advanced wireless broadband services. As the minister said in his announcement, this is indeed a historic microeconomic reform. The auction process will be conducted in the second half of next year, and the clearance of that space will be as soon as possible after the analog switch-off on 31 December 2013. This process has been one of certainty and sound strategy—again, consistent with the imperatives of spectrum management.

I want to turn to the restack and the process of clearing out those broadcasting services currently occupying the sweet spot of the spectrum and how they are going to be organised more efficiently. ACMA has been working on these complex issues associated with the restack and the switch-off. There has been significant coordination with broadcasters. In terms of a digital dividend for television, there are essentially two ways of restacking in channels 52 to 69, commonly referred to the block approach versus the minimum move approach. Either everything above channel 52 gets moved or you have a block move—all six digital channels are moved next door to each other. You can see the good outcomes that could possibly flow from that option, such as all antennae being able to work. Amongst other things, ACMA is taking these things into account and is cognisant of the need to minimise viewer disruption. In fact, it is currently consulting on these two proposed planning approaches for the restack. ACMA has also made it clear that the broadcasting industry will need to coordinate its efforts to avoid disrupting services. This again reflects the very sound approach being taken by the regulator, working in conjunction with the industry, to ensure that all consumers benefit from the digital dividend.

I want to say some other things about the ACMA process. I think Giles Tanner from ACMA summed it up very well when he described the digital dividend and how the advances in digital communications technology allow us to do more with less. ACMA’s role in the digital dividend is threefold: the conversion process, moving from free-to-air analog to digital; the restack of those digital TV services into a smaller amount of the UHF spectrum band slots; and the reallocation of the liberated spectrum left vacant after the TV restack. As I said, that reallocation will take the form of spectrum licences.

In Australia our approach is to have an auction process, consistent with the recognition of the value of this spectrum and the imperative of achieving an appropriate rent for such a valuable, scarce resource. Also, consistent with the statutory objects of the act, 15-year spectrum licences will be auctioned. This reflects intelligent planning. It will avoid having a period when there is spectrum lying unused between the analog shutdown and the start date for the new uses of the digital dividend spectrum. Reallocation will occur in parallel with the planning and implementation of the restack.

I said earlier that I defy anyone to find a strategy that has been carried out in a more orderly and structured way. I want to turn to the overseas experience in this area and the importance of harmonisation. It is very useful to contrast the successful transition that is underway in Australia with the European experience. So much of the time European countries take action on certain policy issues only when they are directed to do so and are threatened with action under the European Union sanctions process. In contrast, Australia is actually helping with the harmonisation. We are reflecting the true nature of radcomms management as a global management issue of standardisation and interference management. In this radcomms area it is actually counterproductive to insist on a uniquely Australian solution. The result of the approach we have taken is that other countries actually are going to look to Australia as a model of how to do this task successfully. This is a very good news story for Australia.

The spectrum auction process will deliver benefits for consumers, including economies of scale, achieved by harmonising our use of the 700 megahertz spectrum with the uses in major overseas markets. There are headlines in Europe, for example, that say that the digital dividend may not pay off as well as it should. There are risks in some countries where spectrum is being freed up that only uses a fraction of that required for analog transmission. From initial auctions, the trend is not encouraging for consumers. The Swedish auction has only confirmed the status quo, to preserve what some have analysed to be an oligopoly in the domestic mobile business. Australia has very sound spectrum management rules to overcome that.

The bill confers on ACMA and indeed clarifies some aspects that have been interpreted as statutory impediments to carrying out its planning functions in this digital dividend task. The broadcasting sector and the telcos are on board. The amendments that have been made through the Radiocommunications Act and the Broadcasting Services Act continue a very clear strategy that is being held up as world’s best practice. All of us in this place should embrace the realisation of the digital dividend.

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

As we have heard, the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Dividend and Other Measures) Bill 2011 seeks to take some further steps in the government’s program to convert Australia’s television system to digital. The elements in the bill will make some improvements in that regard, but this debate gives us an opportunity to review the progress of the analog switch-off. There are widespread concerns in the community about the impact on households of the digital conversion. This is the first time in history that a Labor government has delivered something to the country areas before the cities. I suppose that should have set off alarms in the first place. Country areas are clearly being used as the experimental guinea pigs to see whether this conversion can be run smoothly before it is attempted in any of the large cities.

The member for Greenway said that the digital television system will deliver equality of access to people in regional Australia. It is true to say that for most people who live in regional communities it will deliver equality of access to the range of channels that exist in the cities. There will also be a small number of people in remote areas who will be better off, and that is certainly to the credit of this program. Unfortunately, there will also be some thousands who will be much worse off. Those people cause me the greatest concern.

The government’s decision to not convert over 400 of the self-help transmitters around the country means that over 400 communities will have their analog television signals switched off and there will be no digital transmission coming from the transmitters. Instead, the government is offering a satellite option, an option which is obviously inferior for most of these people. The government is going to make billions of dollars out of the sale of the spectrum that will be freed up as a result of the closure of the analog television network. Why can’t it spend some of those dollars—$100 million or so would just about do it—to convert all of the self-help transmitters so that people living in small regional communities and in some cases urban communities are able to get their signal in the same way that they get it now? That is surely a reasonable request.

About 100 or so of the transmitters will be converted, largely at the expense of the television stations themselves, but over 400 will not. That seems to me to be not treating people in regional areas as fairly as they should be treated.

Debate interrupted