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

I rise today to speak on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Review of Future Uses of Broadcasting Services Bands Spectrum) Bill 2011. This bill seeks to do two things. Firstly, it seeks to amend section 35A of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to defer the initial statutory review of whether to allocate one or more additional television broadcasting licences. The current act requires a review to be conducted by 1 January 2012. This amendment will defer that date to 1 January 2013 to allow for the completion and reporting of the Convergence Review, which is scheduled to report to the government in early 2012. Secondly, the bill seeks to amend the act to expand the scope of the statutory review to consider possible uses of the unassigned broadcasting services band spectrum available for both television broadcasting services and non-broadcasting services. The expanded scope of the review will examine any impact that the introduction of new services using the unassigned broadcasting service band spectrum will have on current broadcasting services and consumers. As the statutory review will no longer exclusively examine the commercial television broadcasting services, this bill moves section 35A to the relevant section of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to part 3, which covers the planning of broadcasting services spectrum.

Importantly, the deferred review reporting date will allow, as I noted, for the convergence review to be completed and to report. The convergence review is a very important step in re-evaluating the fundamental principles underpinning the media's regulatory environment. It is prudent that any review into the use of the so-called sixth channel broadcasting services band spectrum take into account the convergence review's recommendations. Given the rapid advances in technology—which will be ever thus, I fear, characteristically well ahead of the legislation and the policy and regulation—it is important that our legislation reflect insofar as it can the ever-expanding possibilities for spectrum allocation. It is for this reason that the coalition is supporting this bill. It is a prudent step to provide further time for the convergence review to report.

Spectrum is a finite resource and, as such, requires careful planning and management in order to maximise both public and private benefit. There has been a great deal of debate surrounding the question of what to do with the broadcasting services band spectrum or the sixth channel spectrum since the switch-over to digital television was considered in the 1990s. There are currently seven frequency channels of broadcasting services band spectrum that are available to deliver television services. They will be reduced to six once the digital switch is complete and the seven megahertz broadcasting spectrum digital dividend that will exist as a result of the completion of the digital switch-over and spectrum restack also underway will create the opportunity for either a sixth television network or use with new technologies.

As I mentioned, this issue of the creation of a sixth channel or a fourth commercial network has been a long-running one. While it has been possible with analog transmission to accommodate a sixth channel, successive governments have deemed the environment not appropriate for the introduction of an additional commercial network. Indeed, the commercial broadcasters have argued—and I suppose you could say that they would argue that, wouldn't they?—that there simply were not the revenues to enable an additional commercial television network to be licensed, at least not the revenues available that would enable it to be profitable and, indeed, to enable the commercial broadcasting industry to continue to fulfil the expensive obligations it has to provide, for example, Australian content and drama and the other obligations that they bear.

To what extent these arguments are valid depends a lot on the economic circumstances and the technology. The cost of running a television station from a technical point of view is much reduced; however, the cost of content, if anything, is becoming more expensive. It is a moot point. I recall 20 years ago when the Ten Network went into receivership and I was advising the new owners, Westpac, about how to restructure the Ten Network, which we were able to successfully do. There are a lot of people, a lot of so-called media experts at the time, who said there was not even room for that network to survive and that there was not room in Australia for more than two commercial television networks. A lot of very credible figures made that case. Now looking back that seems absurd. So I just note in passing that, while I am not signing up to the proposition that there is not a commercial basis for an additional commercial television network, I think we have always got to review these assertions of what the economics of the industry are in the circumstances at the time and take into account that everybody has a vested interest—or everyone in the industry does. In 1997 the Howard government allocated the sixth channel spectrum for use by community free-to-air broadcasters and maintained the restriction on the establishment of a fourth television licence. In 1998 this policy was extended until December 2008 and the media reform package introduced in 2006 offered the first signs that there may be some certainty over the use of the sixth channel spectrum with the then prime minister announcing spectrum would be auctioned off to allow for two digital services. This policy was overturned in 2007 and the future of this spectrum has become much less certain.

The way Australians now consume news, entertainment and other content is rapidly changing and we have to rethink our basic assumptions about how we access and consume digital content. Regulators are constantly faced with the challenge of creating policy that keeps pace with technological change while taking into account the potential future demand for services. Australians are rapid adopters of new technology and in regard to the means of accessing content we now have more choice than ever before. With the advent of tablets, smartphones, smart TVs, IPTV and, of course, the arrival of cloud computing, the traditional media landscape is almost unrecognisable from what we have today and the environment is only becoming more competitive. We are moving into what I have described elsewhere as arguably a post-channel environment, which has very significant implications for regulation. So much of our protection of Australian content, or our promotion of Australian content, is premised on there being limited number of channels licensed by the government which enable the licensee to broadcast content into the homes of Australians. A condition of having one of those channels is to have so much Australian content, so much drama, so much children's content and so forth.

As long as those channels are basically the only ones that were available for most Australians, that regulation had some force. But now in a thoroughly IP world we are in a position where, increasingly, the fundamental business model of free-to-air television is under question. There are people that are saying the business model of free-to-air television is doomed. I do not think there is any evidence—right at the moment anyway—to suggest that that is a realistic prophecy. Having said that, those people who predicted doom for the business model of newspapers ten years ago, and in some cases even five or six years ago, were being criticised as doomsayers. This is a rapidly developing area and we are seeing creative destruction—if that is the right term—on a very large scale. Rupert Murdoch himself famously said that, as I frequently repeat—although on one occasion he told me he did not recall saying this, but I know he did say it. It was a very profound insight. Mr Murdoch said that the internet will destroy more profitable businesses than it will create. That has certainly been so for his company at least. What this means is that we have a very different media environment. What is the appropriate means of regulating or promoting Australian content if the free-to-air channel becomes less and less important as the medium through which Australians view digital content, especially drama and children's programs? One can see free to air becoming increasingly dependent on live events—a grand final or the latest news—where turning on the program a day later or even a half-hour later is of no benefit to you. What about the other types of cultural content that are so important?

It is a brave new world. This area of convergence poses huge challenges, most significantly in the area of entertainment—drama in particular. The United States internet movie download company Netflix is now the largest source of internet traffic in North America. That is something to reflect on when we talk about the benefits of the NBN, because the bulk of the bandwidth on the NBN will in fact be used for exactly the same thing: video entertainment. Netflix accounts for 30 per cent of peak downstream traffic in the United States, and similar digital content—that is to say, video entertainment, video streaming and downloads—brings the total up to over 50 per cent. That is what the internet traffic in the United States is largely made up of. Why is that? I am not suggesting that that is the most important part of internet traffic—far from it—but the reason it takes up so much of the traffic is that they are very big files compared to an email or most business data.

There are more than 45 million users of IPTV, internet protocol enabled television, worldwide today. That number is rapidly expanding. It is expected that the Asia-Pacific region, our region, will have the largest number of subscribers to IPTV. That means that every television set will become connected to the internet and that a consumer will be able to view a video on YouTube, a movie download, streaming video content, video content delivered by a newspaper website such as the Sydney Morning Herald or the Australianany video content that can be delivered over the internet. Those channels that used to be fixed windows, the only windows through which you could see content, are now just some among an almost infinite range of windows or portholes through which consumers can see content.

In September, the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy released a discussion paper on the allocation of spectrum. It said that ACMA should take five principles into account when allocating spectrum:

1. allocate spectrum to the highest value use or uses

2. enable and encourage spectrum to move to its highest value use or uses—

In other words, ideally not have the government telling people what they should do with the spectrum but allow it to be determined by the market—

3. use the least cost and least restrictive approach to achieving policy objectives

4. the extent possible, promote both certainty and flexibility

5. balance the cost of interference and the benefits of greater spectrum utilisation.

So the convergence review is being asked to report. But none of the questions it is being asked to report on are easy so that we can better understand how these priorities have shifted in the new environment. There are some very important questions, over and above the ones I have canvassed, that need to be addressed. How do we maximise long-term revenue from allocating spectrum in an environment where the licence holders are now competing not only with each other but with other companies delivering content over the internet? The big content providers used to be the free-to-air television stations and Pay TV channels. But it is now, increasingly, what are called the over-the-top companies—Google, Amazon and many others—who are able to deliver content over the internet directly to the consumer as and where the consumer wants it.

We have to address how vital services, such as emergency services and police, and railways, who have specialised spectrum requirements, are going to be addressed. They are more dependent on the allocation of spectrum than ever in a wireless world. How do we ensure—and this is arguably one of the most challenging issues for the review—that the old objectives of regulation, such as ensuring a level of local content, are maintained when the government no longer has control over the delivery platforms, when we move into a post-channel environment? This is a gigantic issue for the Australian film and television industry and for Australian-content providers generally.

As the department's discussion paper notes, digitisation of broadcasting means that a sixth TV channel, for example, could deliver as many as five standard-definition streams, or multichannels. If it used newer coding technologies such as MPEG4, it could deliver even more, possibly up to 10, multichannels. But we have to ask ourselves whether spectrum of this kind, which could be used for so many other applications—it can be used for what we call generically mobile data—should be allocated for broadcasting at all.

High-speed broadband is now delivered on a fixed-line basis to most premises, and that will be so whether the government continues with its fibre-to-the-home rollout or whether other, more cost-effective technologies are deployed, as we have recommended, and wireless broadband continues to become more and more compelling because of the functionality of mobility. In that environment, there is a powerful argument for saying that spectrum should, as far as possible, be allocated in such a way that it represents a neutral platform that can be deployed in accordance with market demands, consumers' demands and preferences, for whatever content they seek—whether it is video or some other form of content, and obviously different types of content and videocommunications.

All in all, this is a prudent measure, but I think we need to be very alert to the changes that we are seeing in the digital world. There are huge issues associated with this. What we have seen, for example, in the newspaper industry has very big implications for our democracy. We often talk about quality journalism. I think some people think that that means an article in the Australian, the Age, or the Sydney Morning Herald as opposed to something in the Daily Telegraph or the Herald Sun. That is not the case. When we talk about quality journalism we are talking about journalism in the traditional sense, where journalists are paid or employed to go out and make inquiries, do research, ask questions and actually do the legwork, which of course takes time and costs money. There is nothing cheap about good journalism because it takes time and journalists have to be paid.

The resources that are available to newspapers are shrinking all the time. They have traditionally been the place where most of our quality journalism has been deployed, because they have had the space. The decline in revenues, in advertising, has been extraordinary. It was not so long ago that we used to talk about the Fairfax broadsheets, the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald, as having 'rivers of gold'—classified rivers of gold. Those classifieds have moved, substantially if not entirely, onto an online environment. The owners of those assets—and they shared this error with newspaper owners everywhere else in the world—facing the classic dilemma of every incumbent who sees a challenge to their existing franchise, had the choice of whether to move onto the new technological platform themselves and cannibalise their own legacy business, or try to protect their legacy business for as long as they could. But the truth is that, if you take the latter course of action, which is what most publishers have done, you end up with your legacy business being cannibalised; it is just that it is cannibalised by somebody else.

But the critical thing is that the revenues that were available for advertising in newspapers—the classifieds, almost entirely now, and, increasingly, display advertising—while they have not moved in the sense of 100 cents in the dollar to the digital platform, have been replaced by advertising which is much, much cheaper and more cost-effective and, in most cases, has greater functionality as well. Who nowadays would imagine ploughing through pages and pages of newsprint, as we used to, to find a flat to rent or a car to buy or to see if somebody had found your lost goldfish? All of that has gone by the by.

That type of challenge is also seen as being there for free-to-air television—although, as I said earlier, I am not as gloomy about their prospects. If there is a question that the media inquiry that the government set up—in a pretty transparently cynical, even by their standards, effort to have a slap at News Ltd—should be looking into, and of course it is something that the convergence review should take into account as well, it is: what are the implications for democracy of the decline of journalism? The Americans are very alert to this. What happens, what is the quality of the democratic process—perhaps not here in the federal parliament but in a state parliament, or in a local council—if there are no longer any journalists, if there is no longer a business model that can support the journalists to do their work: to report on what is going on, to question, to probe, to be a challenge—to undertake the traditional role of the media? Who guards the guardians when there is no business model to support journalism?

This is a gigantic issue. We often talk about the anxieties and neuroses of politicians, and every three years or less we face the judgment of our electors and they may well choose, right or wrongly, to throw us out. But the most anxious people in this building are not in the chamber anymore; they are in the press gallery. There are hundreds of journalists up there—and the younger ones are the most anxious—who are asking themselves: 'Have I signed up to an industry that really has a future? Where is the revenue, where is the business model, that is going to support my job?' And they see the newsroom shrinking. They see their ability to do the research, do the work and actually fulfil the traditional role of journalism being diminished. So this raises big questions for the importance of public broadcasting. Many could make a case that it is now more important than ever because obviously it is not as threatened by this, being supported by the taxpayer.

So these are important, vital issues. We should, and it is appropriate to, put off this question of the allocation of the so-called sixth channel spectrum. But the issue that we need to turn our minds to as parliamentarians—and I think all Australians need to think about this—is: what price our democracy when journalism no longer has a business model that can support it? We tend to assume that everything about the internet and the digital world is good. Most of it is good, but there are some very big implications. Until now we have had the dogged determination of hundreds of journalists working away, holding us to account, holding lots of other people to account, sometimes getting it right, sometimes getting it wrong, but nonetheless playing their role in our democracy. Do we really imagine that that can be replaced by a world of Twitterers—or tweeps, as we Twitterers are called—bloggers and Facebookers? Is that really going to cut the mustard? Is that going to be enough? We have read a lot about social media being a great adjunct and addition to news gathering, but is it a substitute for it? Can it replace it, or will we just be left in a sort of wilderness of opinion?

We support this bill, but it raises issues of great moment and issues that I trust all of us in this place will be focusing on. It gets back to what Jefferson said. He of course had plenty of disagreements with newspapers. They were even more pungent in those days than they are today. He said that, if he were given a choice between a government with no newspapers or newspapers with no government, he would choose newspapers every time. I think all of us recognise the important role of the press and of freedom of the press, but we also have to recognise that the business model that has supported it—whether it is the press in terms of newsprint or free-to-air television news—is under very, very serious threat. There are big issues for our democracy in the area of convergence.

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

I would like to thank the member for Wentworth for sharing his quote from Mr Murdoch. It is interesting that Mr Murdoch viewed the internet as a business rather than as a social investment or an investment in people and communities. It brings me back to the point that the internet is but one application of high-speed broadband rather than the end of it. Also, the member for Wentworth mentioned the importance of technology-neutral platforms in the context of this bill, the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Review of Future Uses of Broadcasting Services Bands Spectrum) Bill 2011. I will discuss this further on. There is a clear preference for and a clear recognition of Long Term Evolution, LTE, abiding in these amendments, which I will discuss later.

I rise in support of this bill, which essentially proposes a revenue-neutral extension of a statutory time frame for a review by the minister of whether to allocate one or more commercial television licences in the broadcasting services bands. This extension is to allow for the findings of the convergence review to be received and considered prior to this ministerial review, which is a logical course of policy deliberation, on which I will also elaborate. Despite the seemingly innocuous nature of these amendments, the effect of these provisions reflects the profound and ongoing evolution of our spectrum management, its implications for the broadcasting space and potential future uses of spectrum in the realisation of the digital dividend.

In addition to the extension of the statutory time frame by one year, for a review to be conducted before 1 January 2013, under the proposed amendments the bill also amends the scope of that review to reflect the multiple and often competing uses for the unassigned broadcasting services bands spectrum. This is a logical and desirable amendment. It is consistent with the current convergence review being conducted, which is consulting on the critical issues associated with the ongoing designation, allocation and use of this precious spectrum for future generations. At the outset, I think it is vital we acknowledge the importance of these provisions for telecommunications, radiocommunications, broadcasting and indeed a future convergent communications environment as we shift to platform, technology and content neutrality. We have one opportunity to get this right and, as I have previously commented on in other relevant legislation in the radiocommunications space, there is one lesson that we must adhere to regardless of where we stand in the policy debate, whether we favour future uses for mobile wireless data or indeed commercial television licensing—that is, we must never underestimate the future. In Australia we have an enviable reputation for our regulatory environment, which is by and large globally recognised for its robust nature and logical development. As we approach Long Term Evolution, LTE, and reach the point where we must decide how we maximise the reutilisation of the sweet spot in the radiocommunications spectrum following the analog restack, we must do so in the most informed and forward-looking way possible as well as extract the maximum value, and consistency with the public interest, for what I believe to be the most precious of our scarce resources: spectrum, a finite concept which is used but not consumed and which, when allocated, confers enjoyment of both flexibility and certainty for its licence holder, and the value of its use can be optimised.

I would like to turn briefly to what this bill does. In addition to amending the time frame and the scope of the ministerial review to be conducted under section 35A, it is relevant to note that these provisions will shift to part 3 of the Broadcasting Services Act, which deals with the planning of the broadcasting services bands—that is, it reflects the fact that it will not necessarily be the case for this review to be confined to the allocation of additional commercial television broadcasting licences and, indeed, this is a reflection of a ministerial consideration that will be made in a convergent environment rather than limited to one aspect of broadcasting licensing. Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, it may look innocuous, but it was always perplexing for me, as a practitioner examining these elements of the legislation, to have these provisions located in part 4 of the act rather than in part 3, for how could one enable reallocation of broadcasting services bands for anything other than a BSB designation? I know it would not occupy front of mind for many people, but it is very pleasing for me to see that this has finally been resolved.

The Broadcasting Services Act sets out a process for the allocation of new licences for certain services defined as being capable of using broadcasting services bands spectrum. There are also limits on the actions of the regulator, with the ACMA not permitted to allocate a new commercial television broadcasting licence in an area where there are already three in existence, unless the minister has firstly conducted a review.

I would now like to turn to the nature of the broadcasting services bands because it is useful to provide context for these amendments. The Broadcasting Services Act defines 'broadcasting services bands' to mean:

(a) that part of the radiofrequency spectrum that is designated under subsection 31(1) of the Radiocommunications Act 1992 as being primarily for broadcasting purposes; and

(b) that part of the radiofrequency spectrum that is designated under subsection 31(1A) of the Radiocommunications Act 1992 as being partly for the purpose of digital radio broadcasting services and restricted datacasting services.

That is, the broadcasting services bands are currently defined in a non-convergent term either for broadcasting for digital radio or for datacasting. This is relevant because, under the proposed amendments, section 35A will instead operate to facilitate a review of this usage under the broadcasting services bands. It is also important to note that the amendments do not foreclose the possibility of any decision being made on its future use, including that of additional commercial television services. Although the scope of the review will be broadened, no predetermination is made as a result.

The term 'designation' is used in the definition of the broadcasting services bands, and it is important to note the relationship of this term with that of the allocation process. Broadcasting services bands spectrum is only considered as available for allocation if the regulator, the ACMA, makes a determination in relation to that spectrum. Under these amendments, it is clear that the new section 35A review is not constructed to revisit any availability of BSB spectrum for national or commercial television broadcasting services in an area, nor those parts of the BSB spectrum that will be relocated as part of the digital dividend process that is set out under the Radiocommunications Act. This distinction is relevant in understanding the precise nature of the spectrum management framework, the role of the minister and the role of the regulator in this regard. This distinction, which is picked up in the Convergence Review materials, also highlights how Australia, like many parts of the world finding themselves in the process of convergence, has different planning regimes for spectrum that is used for broadcasting versus spectrum that is used for other services such as telecommunications, including wireless broadband services. Convergence increasingly means that this once-logical rigid separation is questionable. The conduct of the review to be undertaken by the minister under section 35A is also set out in the proposed amendments. These are mandatory yet non-exhaustive, with provision made for any relevant matters to be taken into account. The specified list of requirements includes the objects of the Broadcasting Services Act, planning criteria, spectrum availability and the impact of new television or other services on both the broadcasting services bands as well as on consumers.

I would like to turn to the issue of convergence and its relevance to these amendments. The phenomenon of convergence was once actually a hotly debated point, and I recall in the Productivity Commission's landmark review of telco regulation in 2000 that the concept was indeed hotly contested between stakeholders about what it was, how it could be defined, what its impact would be and what regulatory approaches should be adopted, if any, to address it. Today, of course, it is the subject of understanding how our past regulatory distinctions between elements such as spectrum that is allocated for broadcasting services and spectrum allocated for other purposes such as mobile data were distinguished on the basis of carriage and connectivity versus content provision. Today we accept that a delivery platform does not define or confine content provision. As the Convergence Review papers point out, this has led to a blurring of the distinction in how spectrum is regulated. While the allocation of spectrum for television is currently regulated by the Radiocommunications Act, viewing the same content via a catch-up service is primarily regulated by the Broadcasting Services Act. In a convergent world there is, again, a question as to whether these separate spectrum management regimes are appropriate.

It is also useful before examining the bill in the context of the Convergence Review to take a snapshot of how far the Broadcasting Services Act has evolved since 1992. Back then, some of its key elements were five channels of free-to-air broadcasting and Sky Channel narrowcasting in pubs and clubs, and the subscription broadcasting moratorium was expiring. Now the services relevant to the Broadcasting Services Act oversight include five free-to-air channels plus digital HD or SD simulcast and multichannels, over 100 channels of subscription television, interactive services, video on demand, streamed video and downloaded video.

I would like to make mention of the structure and substance of the Convergence Review currently being undertaken, which continues this methodical and stakeholder driven process of informing crucial policy in this area. The Convergence Review Committee has released a series of discussion papers ranging from licensing, content and competition to community standards. In particular, I would like to focus on discussion paper 2, which is highly relevant to this bill, concerning spectrum allocation and management. The introductory comments of this paper reflect my earlier remarks concerning the importance of sound spectrum management policy. It says:

Spectrum is a scarce national resource. It represents a key platform for the delivery of media content and communications. How this spectrum is planned and managed by government will have an impact on the achievement of the objectives reflected in the principles for the convergent communications environment.

The Convergence Review paper I have mentioned also highlights the five regulatory principles which the ACMA has adopted in its spectrum management undertakings and in providing guidance to stakeholders about the regulatory approach to this spectrum management.

In the context of the above regulatory approach, key issues for the Convergence Review include the following questions: how could public interest considerations relating to the carriage of broadcasting content be dealt with in a converged spectrum management approach—in the amendments to the 15-year spectrum grants for the Radiocommunications Act last year, I noted that there was no jurisprudence in this area on what constituted the public interest under those similar provisions; what are the possible implications for spectrum management policy of the enhanced efficiency of broadcast spectrum resulting from digitisation; how might pricing for broadcasting spectrum and related licences be dealt with; and how might the rollout of digital radio in regional Australia and the allocation of the sixth television channel be managed in the new environment? Consideration of all these questions are, again, all instructive in illustrating the sound policy process which underlies the amendments before us.

In conclusion, the sixth channel, channel A, has been debated since 2000 and certainly even before that. In the 2006 amendments, we had the auction process announced for two digital services, channel A being for in-home narrowcasting and channel B for mobile TV. We have, of course, progressed since then and in January last year we had the DBCDE discussion paper which canvassed the option for the digital dividend. We found stakeholder differences—which I think we all expected to find—between, for example, community broadcasting, free TV, subscription television and mobile operators. In June last year the minister announced that the contiguous block in the high-range UHF band would be released. The ACMA consultation on the digital dividend, whatever the outcome, clearly favours recognition of long-term evolution. The Convergence Review is logical and sensible. Despite all these questions I have discussed, one thing is certain: the dynamic and ever-changing nature of this environment is both predictable, because it actually will change, and very exciting, because we do not know precisely how it will change. I commend the bill to the House, because it is a logical process of enabling the minister to prudently consider the outcomes of the Convergence Review before a decision is made.

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

I am pleased to rise to speak on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Review of Future Users of Broadcasting Services Bands Spectrum) Bill 2011. The key purpose of this bill is to seek to amend section 35A of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to defer the initial statutory review of whether to allocate one or more additional commercial television broadcasting licences. The current provision requires the minister to cause a review to be conducted by 1 January next year. The amendment will defer the date to 1 January 2013. We are told that the rationale for this is allowing for the completion and reporting from the Convergence Review, which is scheduled to report to the government in early 2012.

The bill also amends section 35A to reframe and expand the scope of the statutory review so that the review will consider possible uses of the unassigned broadcasting services bands spectrum available for both television broadcasting services and non-broadcasting services. The expanded scope of the review will also examine any impact the introduction of new services using the unassigned broadcasting services bands spectrum will have on current broadcasting services and consumers.

I will make three points in the brief time available to me. Firstly, I will express the view that the amendment, as far as it goes, is a sensible one and is supported by the coalition. Secondly, I will talk about the broader context of this review process. As the member for Greenway has just noted, the review is part of a broader process under which the so-called digital dividend is being realised through the transition of television broadcasting from analogue to digital. With the greater efficiencies permitted by digital broadcasting, spectrum is freed up both within the broadcasting services band and outside the broadcasting services band. Much of that spectrum has already been reallocated, and clearly this bill addresses the question of the remaining spectrum, so I will talk about the importance of that spectrum and of the reallocation process, particularly in the context of wireless broadband. Thirdly, I will reflect on some of the observations that have been made by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy in this area, particularly concerning wireless broadband in recent years.

I turn firstly to the basis on which the coalition considers that these amendments are broadly sensible and ought to be supported. The need for a review is not contentious. Spectrum will become available as a result of the completion of the digital switch-over and the spectrum re-stack process. That freed-up spectrum will be available for a number of potential purposes. There has been debate surrounding this issue, certainly for as long as I have had the privilege of being involved in the communications sector, which includes my time serving on the staff of the then communications minister in the late 1990s. At that time, this process commenced—the Howard government in 1997 allocated the remaining spectrum to community free-to-air broadcasters and maintained the restriction on the establishment of a fourth commercial television licence. Subsequently, there was an announcement in 2006 that spectrum would be auctioned for two digital services. However, this was overturned by the current government following the 2007 election. Since that time, the future use of the spectrum has been uncertain. The Convergence Review Committee was established by the government in 2010 to look at the future use of the broadcasting services bands spectrum and the purposes for which it might be used.

The central logic of the bill embodying this amendment is that it does not make sense for the statutory review to be conducted by the deadline presently specified in the act in the light of the fact that, as of the deadline, the convergence review will not have reported. There are complex issues facing the commercial television industry and, more broadly, the communications sector. In coming to grips with some of those complex issues, the input from the convergence review will clearly be important in determining the optimal use of this spectrum.

As the shadow minister has already pointed out, the historical divisions between broadcasting spectrum and other kinds of spectrum are now hopelessly outdated. It is clear that this spectrum and many other kinds of spectrum can be used for a whole range of communications services of many different types, all of which are based upon fundamentally consistent underlying technologies. Therefore, the legislative premise that the different kinds of spectrum are to be dealt with in wholly different ways is also completely outdated and the amendment to give effect to a capacity to consider non-broadcasting uses of this spectrum is highly sensible.

That brings me to my second point. The amending legislation here, together with the broader public policy process, which was referred to by the member for Greenway earlier and concerns the realisation of the digital dividend, should remind us of the fundamental importance and value of spectrum for a range of communications services, particularly a range of broadband services.

It is evident, as you look around the world, that it is accepted that the use of radio frequency spectrum for the delivery of wireless broadband services is considered to be of the highest importance. Interestingly, in the United States, the Federal Communications Commission has recently given its full support to the development of mobile broadband in that market. The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission has been quoted in recent days, speaking at the GSMA Mobile Asia Congress, as saying the following:

The Commission is making a concerted effort to make sure that mobile broadband operators have enough spectrum to support the increasing number of smartphones and tablets coming online. This is not something that anyone anticipated, planned for or predicted several years ago but it is a very significant issue, particularly in large densely populated markets with smartphone and tablet penetration. We need to tackle the looming spectrum crunch by dramatically increasing the amount of spectrum.

I venture to suggest that one of the issues which will be absolutely central to this review, as it is conducted under the amended terms set out in proposed section 35A, will be the capacity to use this extra quantity of spectrum for additional mobile broadband purposes. Of course, that would come on top of the program of work the government already has underway to make available additional spectrum under the digital dividend process through an auction process, with the expectation that the bidders are likely to include all of the existing mobile communications and mobile broadband operators.

There has been an explosion in the growth of wireless broadband services. Consumers have taken up these services with enormous enthusiasm, and the government's stated program of conducting auctions recognises the enormous consumer enthusiasm for wireless broadband services. I think there is very little disagreement on any side of the House that wireless spectrum and wireless broadband are of enormous importance. That brings me to my third point. The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has made some reflections about the use of wireless for the delivery of broadband services. For example, I draw the House's attention to what Senator Conroy had to say about OPEL, the network that 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 on repeated occasions as the 'dog of the product'. This is puzzling given that OPEL proposed to use the same spectrum, the 2.3 gigahertz and 3.4 gigahertz spectrum, as is now to be used for the wireless broadband network to be provided as part of the National Broadband Network.

Indeed, Senator Conroy's confusing and conflicting views about wireless broadband were also revealed in an interview on The 7.30 Reportin 2007, where he said 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.

There is a puzzling contradiction between these high-minded consumer warnings being given by Senator Conroy in 2007. I am sure they were motivated purely by a desire to ensure that consumers were not misled, because apparently wireless broadband was deeply flawed—even to the extent that, if your microwave was turned on, you were not able to use wireless broadband—and that the purity of their motivation was only slightly tempered by their enthusiasm, which they have maintained in government with the National Broadband Network, for wireless broadband. I repeat that the spectrum proposed to be used and the speed—a 12-megabit per second peak speed—now proposed by the government under the National Broadband Network are absolutely identical to the OPEL product which was so remorselessly bucketed by Minister Conroy, the then opposition spokesman, during the 2007 election.

Indeed, it was not just the opposition spokesman on broadband who appeared to have a conflicted view, because the then opposition leader, on 19 June 2007, had this to say:

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.

In other words, the member for Griffith was then arguing that fibre was the only sufficient technology and that wireless, going out as far as 98 per cent, was inadequate—a view that the government seems to have changed markedly since it has come to the position that wireless is the appropriate technology to use in the 93rd percentile.

I will make my position on this perfectly clear, lest I be verballed, as is regrettably common when it comes to dealing with the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. I am a strong supporter of wireless broadband, and I have been a consistent supporter of wireless broadband, but the point I am drawing to the attention of the House is that the minister has displayed no such consistency. For shabby, short-term political purposes, he spent most of 2007 ruthlessly bucketing wireless as a technology for the delivery of broadband. Suddenly, in the last couple of years, he has had a road-to-Damascus conversion and now accepts the proposition that wireless is a vitally important technology for the use of broadband. Presumably, he would no longer assert, as he did on 10 August 2010, commenting on the coalition's policy at the last election to use wireless as a component for the delivery of broadband that 'it will consign Australia to the digital dark ages'.

It is truly confusing to try to understand what the minister for broadband actually believes. I really do not advise anybody to look for intellectual or logical consistency in the observations delivered by the minister for broadband. They tend to be influenced heavily by expediency. I do make the point that the legislation before the House today, and indeed other aspects of the government's legislative program, are predicated correctly on the view that wireless spectrum is an asset of great value and that we ought to think very carefully about how we can best optimise, in the public interest, the use of the limited spectrum resources that we have. And as part of that we ought to consider very carefully the use of spectrum, which presently falls within the broadcasting services ban. I have no doubt the review will consider that issue and it will weigh up the competing technologies which are available, and the optimal uses of that spectrum and the optimal regulatory settings, so as to facilitate that spectrum going to its highest value use. Consistency in politics and policy is a fine thing. As I have demonstrated, that is not something that you would look to from the current Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, but on this occasion we are nevertheless delighted to support his legislation.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I begin my contribution, I do need to pick up on some of the comments made by the member for Bradfield. The issue he exhorted us to consider is that he did not wish to be verballed, but I think he did a pretty good job on verballing the minister and the government. Whereas those opposite have placed enormous emphasis on the benefit of wireless in the delivery of broadband in this country, we have sought moderation. By that I mean that as it currently stands today, and until there are potential improvements down the track—we are seeing the rollout of 4G networks that are promising much better speeds than what we have now—wireless technology has a place, but not overwhelmingly in the delivery of data or the delivery of broadband, particularly in heavily urbanised areas. Where we have sought to bring wireless or looking at putting that into the mix where network constraints, for instance the actual rollout of fibre, would not necessarily be the best method of getting broadband to people, wireless would be best in other parts of the country. In particular wireless will certainly fill a gap in regional areas where, for example, wireless does meet a problem in heavily urbanised areas where a great number of consumers on the network at any time, using a wireless network, will find that the speeds that they believe they are entitled to do not match reality. We have certainly not ruled out the use of wireless—we would incorporate it within the network—we just do not believe in the overall reliance upon it as those opposite would be—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): Sorry to interrupt. If the member for Bradfield leaves we will not have a quorum and we will fall over so, if you need to leave, wait until someone comes to replace you. So either get the phone and ask them to send someone up or do not move. My apologies for the interruption to the member for Chifley.

Do I get extra time on the clock? At any rate those opposite are worried about being verballed on wireless and I think it is important we set the record straight. We have had a very stirring defence of the OPEL contract. At no point in time, and it was borne out certainly in the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network hearings held in Sydney, did the 19 broadband plans put forward by those opposite ever have a cost-benefit analysis attached to anything they proposed, yet they are seeking to defend here and now the value of what they had previously put forward as valid and worthy public policy. We are certainly trying to fix once and for all, in a major way, the gaping hole that has existed in providing uniform access to the provision of high quality broadband—fast broadband. We are doing it. But within the context of what we are discussing here today this all gets caught up in the matters we are currently concentrating on in the course of this debate.

The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Review of Future Users of Broadcasting Services Bands Spectrum) Bill 2011 itself has been remarked upon and makes amendments to Broadcasting Services Act 1992. It is being reflected already, or noted, that it will amend 35A to reform the scope of the statutory review so it will consider the possible use of the broadcasting services band spectrum. Putting all that dry talk aside, what this is looking at in simple terms is how we allocate additional commercial TV broadcasting licences. There was a time in this country when such a debate would have caused a great amount of discussion in the public domain. Anything to do with the delivery of TV—who was controlling it, what we actually watched on TV—would have provoked a great deal of discussion. Where we are at right now is a reflection of how far things have moved, and a lot of this has moved as a result of people being able to exercise different content decisions—that is, the way they actually receive information, the way they interact in the public space through the internet. It has been an incredible thing to witness and we are truly a part of what right now is a phenomenal turn of events. We are looking at a whole range of mechanisms as to how we get information and how we relate to the outside world. Obviously this legislation that is before us is in part a recognition that there are a lot of examinations taking place right now about how technology is changing the way information is delivered.

The minister is convening the Convergence Review, which is an exceptionally timely review because it is looking at the policy and the regulatory framework as it exists within a rapidly changing industry environment. That review, being chaired by Glen Boreham, would look at how to best match policy regulation within the environment. Again I reflect on the fact that we are seeing amazing changes in terms of diversity of choice. Something that was mentioned earlier was the value of IPTV and other platforms available to people so that they can access what they view, whether it be through iTunes or through Netflix, and also the way that people may use the internet even for things such as listening to radio or being able to access other forms of media.

In these debates, particularly in terms of the impact of technology on society, we generally find that people are pessimists, believing that technology will have a detrimental effect, or optimists. And then there is a whole bunch of people who just get on with life and adapt to the technology around them. I stand as an optimist, believing that technology continually seeks to improve what people have available to them and that people willingly embrace that new form of technology. People are now actually calling for greater diversity of choice in what they have available to them. You can see it, for example, in digital TV. Broadcasters are recognising that people do want choice. They have seen it through pay TV and the multiplicity of channels available to viewers there. It is happening in digital TV and it is happening on the internet.

The member for Wentworth was reflecting earlier on the predictions of gloom and doom that had been made at a given point in time in relation to one particular broadcaster, Channel 10. He indicated that he did not necessarily believe that gloom and doom should be applied to Channel 10, and he was right. But he also indicated concern about what might happen in delivery of analysis through news. What happens to people who are journalists when the business model comes under increasing pressure within media outlets, particularly in the print media? What happens to the quality of analysis? What happens to the delivery of news and the way things are reported on? I have to say that view on what is happening in print conflicts with his rather optimistic view about broadcasting and what happened to broadcasters in years past. I am surprised by his degree of pessimism. If it is true that in a dynamic market people will fill the void when there is demand, then I think we will see evolution. We will not see the collapse of journalism as we know it today; we will see the use of technology combined with people's demand for quality. As a result of that we will see things evolve. People are themselves taking control of the way in which content is delivered. For example, most people have taken up the option of what is available on YouTube. I do not necessarily subscribe to the quality that exists via that channel, but what it has done is challenge the notion that the only way you get content is if you stick with TV and that commercial TV or public broadcasters are the only ones able to satisfy an appetite or a demand that might exist for content. That is effectively what is being recognised within the convergence review, which I referred to earlier. It is currently calling for public submissions and is looking at this whole issue. I will not go through all of the principles here but the noteworthy ones are, for example:

1. Citizens and organisations should be able to communicate freely, and where regulation is required, it should be the minimum needed to achieve a clear public purpose.

2. Australians should have access to and opportunities for participation in a diverse mix of services, voices, views and information.

3. The communications and media market should be innovative and competitive—

and, importantly—

6. Australians should have access to news and information of relevance to their local communities, including locally generated content.

The issue of content and the point that I made earlier about the pressures being borne by the current business models that exist within the media industry mean that we are having to make really hard decisions about how we will maintain local content quotas, the way in which we expect content will be provided, and how we will satisfy local demand while recognising that there is a great diversity of choice and expectation by people that they will be able to either hop onto the internet and look at what is happening on TV or listen to something different on radio and be able to participate in that. So it is not just a one-way street.

There is also recognition within the convergence review that our regulatory framework in the past has operated within silos. I liken it to former Prime Minister Paul Keating, when he was Treasurer back in 1986, commenting on the fact that you could be either a prince of print or a queen of screen. That debate on cross-media ownership back in the 1980s really reflected our view back then that there was regulation for print and regulation for broadcast and that there was not much convergence. In fact, the convergence review itself recognises that there is a great degree of mixing of mediums and that people will need to cross over a variety of mediums to exist in the modern world. Certainly that review, which is expected to be brought down in March next year, will be critical in shaping the way that we respond to technology in a policy and regulatory sense.

The bill before us now is sensible. I think we on the government side welcome the opposition's support for it, because it is common sense to wait for the convergence review to finish and report to government and to then make decisions about the future use of spectrum. As others have remarked in this debate, the spectrum itself is of critical importance to the country. Decisions about allocation need to be made sensibly. We need to balance a range of interests, and certainly in terms of whether an additional channel comes online we do need to make that decision in the context of what might come up in the convergence review.

Certainly, and at the end of it all, I am very optimistic about the way in which we need to balance a whole range of decisions—the types of issues being dealt with in the convergence review and the power of technology that will further liberate what Australians can do locally but also what they are able to showcase to the world. Obviously people want to know where they are getting their information from, the interests that are behind that information and the transparency required. Ultimately, people want to have a lot more control and choice and they want to have the freedom to express themselves and take advantage of technology that is available a lot more these days. Certainly this bill is very mindful of that, as is the convergence review. I am looking forward to the release of the convergence review and, ultimately, the response to the review. I commend this bill to the House.

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

I am very pleased to thank members for their contributions to the debate. The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Review of Future Uses of Broadcasting Services Bands Spectrum) Bill 2011 provides for the conduct of a review of the possible uses of the last remaining channel of broadcasting spectrum, known as the sixth channel, by 1 January 2013. This is an important review and one that should be conducted after the convergence review has been completed in the first half of 2012. This is appropriate as the convergence review is examining the fundamental settings for broadcasting and media regulation and its recommendations may have a bearing on the future use of the sixth channel. For those reasons I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.