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

The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill allows the commencement of telecommunications and broadband services in the so-called 'digital dividend' spectrum—to be made available by the switch from analog to digital television—which will be auctioned in April and used for next-generation telecom services before the spectrum is removed from the broadcasting services bands. Given the long delay between the date when the telecoms companies pay for the spectrum—assuming any of them do—and when they actually obtain access to it, we welcome facilitating timely, expeditious use of those assets.

However, as is typical of this government, this issue has been monumentally mismanaged and mishandled. While the broadcasting and telecommunications industry are broadly supportive of the changes proposed in the legislation, there are several important issues that this bill raises regarding the government's handling of the spectrum auction and spectrum management in regards to wireless audio device users.

Turning to the bill, it amends the current datacasting regime by introducing the concept of designated datacasting services, which will be defined under the legislation as those provided by a commercial television broadcasting service, a commercial radio broadcasting service or a national broadcaster. Datacasting is a service which delivers content—whether in the form of text, data, speech, music or other sounds, or visual images—to those who have the equipment able to receive it. Today, that is most digital-ready televisions. Datacasting services are different from traditional television services. They are unable to broadcast a range of material that may be considered to be the equivalent of television news programs, drama, lifestyle or entertainment, for example—in other words, datacasting services must not act as a de facto television broadcast. Datacasting licensees are allowed to transmit extracts of television programs; however, those must be not more than 10 minutes and must not be strung together, in effect creating a program.

As part of the transition from analog to digital television, the broadcasters are freeing up spectrum and delivering high-quality content, an issue the coalition got underway during the Howard government. By transitioning from analog to digital, the switch-over, which is in process at the moment, as honourable members know, television broadcasters are clearing 126 megahertz of broadcasting services band spectrum, otherwise known as the digital dividend.

The spectrum, of course, is a very scarce and valuable public asset. As part of the transition, the digital dividend spectrum will be auctioned off in April this year—just a little over a month away—and the spectrum, in the 1,700 megahertz band, is so coveted due to its suitability for LTE or 4G wireless broadband services. That of course is the hottest property in the spectrum world at the moment. The spectrum is due to be cleared by the broadcasters for use by January 2015. That is a significant delay; however, it is necessary to ensure there is a comprehensive clearing of the spectrum before the telecommunications providers move in and start offering 4G wireless broadband services using that spectrum.

However, in the case that there are blocks of spectrum within the digital dividend that have been cleared prior to the licence commencement period, this bill allows the ACMA the discretion to allow successful bidders the opportunity to use the spectrum for services while it still technically remains in the broadcasting services band. Of course, any legislative changes related to the spectrum auction remind us all of the government's earlier bumbling activities in this area, which have included the setting of a base-price spectrum which is remarkably high by any international standards.

In what can only be described as a desperate attempt to achieve a budget surplus, Senator Conroy has intervened in the auction process and set an unprecedentedly high minimum reserve price for the spectrum, previously the role of the ACMA, of $1.36 per megahertz per head of population. This auction was originally due to take place in November last year. However, in June 2012 Senator Conroy announced there would be a delay and the auction would be pushed out to April this year to allow more time to prepare for it. Then in December last year he set a reserve price for the 700 megahertz spectrum. That is, as I said, remarkably high by world standards. This was a classic case of Senator Conroy putting politics before policy, all in order to achieve that elusive yet razor thin budget surplus now since abandoned.

As Optus's head of corporate and regulatory affairs, David Epstein, not unfamiliar with the machinations of Labor Party budget preparation himself, noted the reserve price is effectively double the basket of outcomes achieved in comparable advanced economies over the past two to three years. Only recently we saw in the UK in the auction of the 800 megahertz spectrum, also likely to be used with 4G mobile broadband services, the spectrum sold at a price of 23c per megahertz per head of population. The revenue the government raised was approximately a third less than it had anticipated—perhaps forecasting that Senator Conroy cannot bank on reaping the full $3 billion he expects to raise from the auction. Optus have called this option unworkable while Vodafone said it will not participate at all.

We have three registered bidders for the auction. Vodafone , however, said it will not bid in the 700 megahertz spectrum and instead will focus on the 2½ gigahertz spectrum set at a far more reasonable 3c per megahertz per head of population floor price. Senator Conroy risked having an auction with no bidders at all. So what did he do? He changed the size of the maximum block size bid from 2x20 megahertz to 2x25 megahertz out of a possible 90 megahertz.

Previously the auction had been designed to provide for competition by ensuring there was spectrum available to each of the three major telecommunications carriers. Out of the 90 megahertz of spectrum available, a carrier was not allowed to acquire more than 2x20 megahertz—that is, two blocks. Effectively, Telstra could have had 40, Optus could have had 40 and Vodafone or Telstra could have had 10. However, by changing and expanding the maximum block size for a bid, Senator Conroy ensures that, even without Vodafone's participation, he can be sure to extract every last cent he possibly can from the telcos. This is in stark contrast to, for example, how they operate in the United States where the regulator is prohibited by law from taking into account how much money is raised from spectrum. Yet in Australia that appears to be the government's primary objective in setting this reserve price changing the competition limits.

All of this will have the effect of significantly restricting investments and inflating costs, which will only be passed on to the consumers. Honourable members will immediately think that the response to this is to say: well, should not the minister be protecting the public purse? Should he not be seeking to get the maximum price for this valuable public asset? The answer is that protecting the public purse and revenue and ensuring a fair price is paid is a very important consideration but it is not the only consideration. There is an enormous productivity benefit, an enormous benefit to the overall economy—which the government in many respects through the tax system is the largest single shareholder in—in spreading the use, the affordability and the availability of wireless broadband services. So the more affordable wireless broadband services are, the more those productivity benefits can be obtained.

You have the remarkable situation that the government is, by any view, subsidising by many tens of billions of dollars a fixed-line broadband rollout in the form of the NBN, yet at the same time seeking to extract the absolute maximum price for wireless broadband spectrum, which will only make wireless broadband more expensive and less affordable. I think Honourable members would agree with me that the big change, the remarkable change in business practices in all of our efficiency and productivity has been the spread of wireless technology whether it is all of us doing our work when we are on the road or whether it is the tradesmen who can take a picture of a damaged part on his iPhone and then quickly email it to a supplier who can then send him exactly the right part. All of these millions of applications are made available by wireless technology. That is the great, in my submission, productivity driver—yet it is far from being subsidised; it is actually being gouged by the government. At the same time it is putting tens of billions of dollars into fixed-line broadband connections to residences for the most part and that bandwidth overwhelmingly will be used for the downloading and streaming of video entertainment.

It is as though they are subsidising the former broadband that has the smaller contribution to productivity and gouging the medium of broadband that has the maximum benefit.

This is all from a minister who goes from one bungle to the next. We have seen him announce 2½ years ago a deal on anti-siphoning. These are the rules that determine how much premium sport can be shown on pay television and how much has to be reserved for free-to-air television—arguably the single most important, from a financial point of view, regulation that deals with broadcasters. That deal, a new regime, was announced 2½ years ago. It has no statutory basis at all because the minister has not been able to get any legislation in a form to present to the parliament—completely unfinished work. We have seen the shocking performance of the NBN and the way it has run over budget. Now, as more information came out about the rollout only this morning, and if the figures published in CommsDay this morning are correct, and they certainly have not been denied or contradicted by the NBN Co, it not only appears that it is running behind schedule—and we knew that, because their original plan, for example, said by June 30 this year there would be 1.3 million premises passed with fibre, and then they amended that to say that it would be something in the order of 350,000 premises passed by fibre in August last year, and now we are learning that the rollout will miss that target considerably—but it also appears, incredible though it may sound, that the NBN is passing houses or premises this calendar year at a quarter the rate it was passing them in the previous six months.

The project is failing. Far from having a ramp-up there is, in fact, a 'ramp-down'. We know that the NBN's contractor for South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory, which has been constructing the network for about 20 months now, is not in a position to connect one premise as a result of that 20 months' work. This is a project that is in catastrophic state, at least as far as we can see. But we are yet to hear it get a full mea culpa from the minister. He does not have a lot of time to focus on his failures with anti-siphoning or the NBN Co. or this legislation, because he is now endeavouring to impose the first government regulation of the content of newspapers in our history in peacetime, outside of the First and Second World Wars to be precise. We have been told that that legislation, which was only shown to us last Thursday, has to be passed by this Thursday. We have had committee meetings going today with broadcasting executives—

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Wentworth will confine his remarks to the bill before the house.

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

We have had a situation where his neglect of the important matters in this bill has no doubt been attributable to his distraction over all of these other pieces of unfinished business.

I want now to move on to the matter that the House committee has considered and one that is related to this bill, and it is an example of very disturbing mismanagement of this department and this issue of spectrum. It relates to the handling of wireless audio devices. These are the wireless audio products such as radio microphones, and I will refer to them as radio microphones. They are a huge range of devices, ranging from devices used in entertainment venues, by gym instructors, at a function centres and in church halls. They are all of those radio microphones that form part of our lives. No one really knows how many there are out there. The figures are somewhere at 120,000 to 150,000. They operate in the same piece of the radio spectrum as analogue television broadcasting: 520 to 820 megahertz frequency. They operate in the white space, in the gaps between the pieces of spectrum that are being used by the broadcasters. Their users comprise every possible organisation. I am sure most honourable members would have one or two of these devices in their own electorate offices for public meetings. Users include everybody from the Opera House in Sydney down to the theatre in the school hall.

As part of this digital switchover, a large chunk of this spectrum—694 to 820 megahertz—will be auctioned and made available for 4G wireless broadband, and that spectrum will begin to be populated by the wireless broadband users from 2015 if not earlier, as this bill would allow. The Australian Wireless Audio Group estimates that 80 per cent of the wireless audio device users which are currently operating in this white space in the 700 megahertz band will find that the spectrum they have been using will no longer be available to them once the auction process is complete. They estimate that at least 120,000 units or devices will be redundant by 1 January 2015. When I say 'redundant', they will not be able to be used without the potential either of interference with them from the telcos' use of the digital dividend spectrum or the wireless audio devices themselves interfering with the wireless broadband services that are available on people's smart phones and other 4G devices. The Australian Wireless Audio Group estimates that these radio mikes underpin $32 million of economic activity and the employment of more than 140,000 people. As was made apparent in the course of the very brief enquiry that the committee held into this bill, even though it is abundantly clear that the ACMA and the department have known about this problem for years, there has still not been any decision made as to what spectrum will be available for those devices in the future.

It is perfectly obvious that what should have happened is that, with a very long lead time, the department and ACMA should have concluded what the new home for these devices would be and then given plenty of notice and conducted some form of public information campaign so that the users of these radio microphone devices would have ample time to buy new devices, or, when they bought new devices, ensure that they were tunable or usable in the new spectrum.

The equipment we are talking about generally has a useful life of approximately 10 years. Regrettably, because of the government's inaction, this equipment will soon become unusable, yet it is still being imported and sold to consumers, users and organisations without their being made aware that rather getting a 10-year investment, they may, if they are lucky, only get one year's use from it. Many if not most of the users of this wireless audio equipment are relatively unsophisticated in terms of their understanding of how these products work. Many operate in a plug-and-play mode with limited tunability. This means many of these users are not aware of what frequency their device is operating in and are therefore unaware of the consequences of the restack. At present there is no formal requirement that devices being imported that operate in the digital dividend spectrum either cease to be imported or that suppliers be required to notify consumers of the potential impact of the spectrum auction.

The government has put the onus on the wireless audio device users to contact suppliers about the future functionality of their equipment despite there being no formal education and communication campaign to inform suppliers and users of the regulatory environment in which they will be operated. For that reason we welcome the recommendation by the house committee inquiry into this bill that the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, along with the ACMA, instigate an education awareness campaign as well as a formal product-notification warning system to ensure that purchasers of new equipment know about its possible limited utility after the restack.

But, while there needs to be greater awareness of this issue, the government simply does need to do more. It needs to address it. It needs to ensure that the 120,000 to 150,000 wireless audio device users who will be affected by the restack will be accommodated for. In other words, ACMA and the department have to decide what their new spectrum home will be and then let the users know—and it has to be done now. There seems to be an absolute lack of any sense of urgency on the part of the department officials and ACMA, who gave evidence before the committee.

This bill is predicated on the assumption that this very valuable spectrum—the 'waterfront property' spectrum the government is so desperate to action off—will be clear following the digital switchover. However, the government has absolutely failed to take into account the fact that this very valuable spectrum is occupied by 120,000 to 150,000 users—organisations large and small, for-profit and not-for-profit organisations, churches, gyms, big entertainment centres and schools—and they do not know how they are going to be able to operate their devices and we do not know what sort of problems will arise, in terms of interference, after January.

The successful bidder for the spectrum is going to want to be able to use it. They will have paid very big money, no doubt, to get it. If the government continues along the path they are currently on they will simply be ignoring the problem. It is, I regret to say, a typical 'Conrovian' mismanagement by the senator, and the government, who have been more focused on ensuring that they get the maximum receipt from the auction. They have failed to do the work of clearing the spectrum they are going to sell. They are hoping to get top money, but they have to clear it first and they have to do it in a way that ensures that all of those Australians—in big and small businesses, in not-for-profits and in large corporations—are going to be able to use devices for their work after 1 January 2015.

For that reason, in the committee stage of this debate we will be moving an amendment to the effect that the spectrum that will be made available under this legislation, in advance of the complete clearing of the broadcast bands, cannot be made available unless and until the minister is satisfied that appropriate and adequate provision has been made for the wireless device users I have referred to in my speech today.

This, I grant you, is not the most prominent telecommunications issue of the moment. But if you have a gym, a church hall, and entertainment venue, which could be quite a big one, like the Opera House, and you discover that from 2015 on all of your wireless radio devices cannot work or that instead of hearing the instructions from the gym instructor, or the comments from a teacher or the latest performance of a singer, you are getting any one of our 4G carried wireless conversations, or some music that is being downloaded or some interference caused by some other transmission being caught up in the same frequency, you can imagine that the consequences are going to be shocking. This has the potential of interfering with tens of thousands of businesses and activities, and there is no need for it.

All the government needed to do was to pay attention to the issue. You clear the spectrum. You know a bunch of people using it in the white spaces. That is fine. You have to find a new home for them. You give them plenty of notice. If you do that they will have plenty of time, when buying new equipment, to replace it with equipment that is tunable to the appropriate frequency. And, of course, the importers and the device makers will then know what sort of products to import into and sell in Australia. But everybody is being left in the dark. We were unable to get any satisfactory explanation for this from the department or the ACMA at the hearing—and how could there be? It has simply been overlooked. I have said this a number of times here, but it bears repeating: this is a classic case of the Conrovian mismanagement that is the hallmark of every aspect of this minister's administration, from the spectrum auctions to the anti-siphoning to the NBN to the debacle of the so-called media reform laws that we are, allegedly, going to be considering this week.

The coalition will support the bill, but we believe it should be amended. I say to government members that they would be helping the government—they would be helping the minister, dare I say it—if they were to support the amendment I have foreshadowed, because that would at least ensure that there would be priority and focus given by the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and the ACMA to this issue so they could find a new home for these radio microphone users, notify them and give them enough time to make appropriate equipment choices.

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

The realisation of the digital dividend is, indeed, one of the most exciting and historic developments in Australia's communications history, but, in classic Turnbullian know-it-all, the member for Wentworth could not help but be negative, calling this process 'a monumental failure'. I will talk about monumental failures in a moment, when I talk about the Howard government's handling of the datacasting debacle.

The member for Wentworth raised a few points—firstly, the base price at the upcoming auction—and noted that Optus complained about there being a reserve price. Of course it is going to complain; it is about to bid in an auction. As if it wants to have the highest price! As a purchaser it is seeking as low a price as possible. As to the delay of the auction that has occurred, the member would well know that the government took advice on the competition rules and framed the appropriate competition rules from the auction based on what the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission advised it. So be under no illusions here about whether or not the proper process is being followed in this auction. As for the 23 megahertz per pop that is being peddled here this evening, and has been peddled also by the member for Bradfield in public, that is just plain wrong and I will show you in a moment why that maths is wrong.

As to the number of registered bidders, it is no surprise that Vodafone's focus is elsewhere when you consider where it is standing now in comparison to Telstra and Optus as mobile carriers. Vodafone is even on the record as saying it does not believe that it needs any more of this new spectrum that is being auctioned. As to the changes in the block size, again, based on the competition rules and advice received on this auction, enabling the maximum sale and minimising the number of unsold lots is purely logical spectrum auction practice. As to the United States and what they achieved in their auctions, let's remember this: not only is the regulatory structure of the Federal Communications Commission, the regulator in the United States, very different to Australia but the FCC was widely criticised for the process it undertook with its own digital dividend path.

I note, too, that the member for Wentworth is continuing this furphy of fixed versus wireless broadband. He is still incapable of understanding that they are complementary and that fixed wireless services are those which are being used and go through a short-range wireless router. One does not use one's iPad simply in a vacuum; one is using it to connect to a short-range wireless router. So limited is the member for Wentworth's understanding of all these issues that, again, he is peddling this myth that the National Broadband Network is all about the download. It is not about the download; it is about the upload and the new applications beyond your typical, non-imaginative thinking that is incapable of going beyond the internet as a sole application.

He then went on to discuss the National Broadband Network because he could not help himself. The member for McEwen and I attended the committee hearing when this was being debated a few days ago and we note that the member for Wentworth was not. He talked about the ramp-up. I know it is being ramped up because every time I go down the streets of Blacktown I can see the cable being rolled out. It is plainly obvious that it is being ramped up. As I said in the Federation Chamber during the debate on the committee report, the backbenchers opposite go into their electorates and complain that they are not getting the NBN fast enough and take up petitions calling for the NBN, and then they come in here and say something completely different. When they are outside they complain that they want it; in here, they vote against it.

I note that the member for Wentworth, having discussed the National Broadband Network, could not help but then mention media rules and free speech. I will not go into too much detail, Madam Deputy Speaker Livermore, considering your view on that, as you made clear, but the member for Wentworth wants free speech for everyone else but no free speech when someone is criticising him. As we can see from Delimiter on 13 March 2013, amongst other places:

… the ABC’s Media Watch program went into detail to examine the coverage of ABC Technology + Games Editor Nick Ross with respect to the NBN.

I will not go into too much detail now, but, if people want to look that up, they can see that it is one rule for the member for Wentworth and another rule for everyone else. But I digress.

The digital dividend is, indeed, one of the most important aspects of our communications policy. Those opposite would do well to take lessons from their own standard, set by Senator Helen Coonan when she was the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. On 29 April 2007, she made this criticism:

Labor is making a habit of creating policy on the run … Whether it is on broadband, climate change or digital TV, Labor think that it can make it all the way to election day with glib lines and no detail on anything.

On the digital dividend, the coalition would do well to take a leaf out of their own Real Solutions prop, where the word 'digital' appears twice and, even then, is used in a completely nonsensical context. They have no policy for the digital dividend; they simply come in here with negativity.

For the benefit of those tuning in to debate, I want you to know that this measure is a really positive thing. There is a block of spectrum in an area called the broadcasting services bands that is currently occupied by broadcasters and designated to be used for broadcasting services as well as parts of the radio frequency spectrum designated for some use by digital radio broadcasting services and certain datacasting services. This spectrum will be vacated of its current use and auctioned for advanced communications services. This bill will enable the possible commencement of those services in that spectrum while the spectrum is still part of the broadcasting services bands. I note that these telco services, if this bill goes through, can commence in the broadcasting services bands in the spectrum identified as the digital dividend while that spectrum is still classified as being in the broadcasting services bands.

This bill was referred to a committee, which recommended that it be passed. It is clear from the comments of the member for Wentworth that he is very ready to judge the ACMA when it comes to interference issues, of which he made a great deal. The point is that this is not the first time in Australia's history that contiguous blocks of spectrum have been cleared, and indeed one of the primary objects of the radiocommunications regime is to minimise interference and for the regulator to take an active role in ensuring that interference is minimised wherever possible. Quite frankly, that is what regulators do: they prepare, they monitor and they establish best practice when it comes to minimising interference. I take it that the member for Wentworth has no confidence whatsoever in the regulator to do that, despite the fact that it does it on a daily basis. On this side of the House, we tend to have confidence that the regulator not only understands its role under the legislation but is also capable of performing it.

The bill before us contains some relatively minor but highly significant amendments to give effect to realising the digital dividend, which I have previously described in this place as an integral step in the process of planning and enforcing the restack of those broadcasting services occupying the spectrum in the broadcasting services bands. Indeed, as I have described, the spectrum path that is being pursued by this government—contrary to everything you would have heard from the member for Wentworth—is a fabulous opportunity for Australia to enjoy significant wireless broadband services, utilising the sweet spot of that liberated spectrum, complementary to the innovative benefits delivered by the NBN.

Further, Australia is recognised on a world scale as being best practice in terms of not only these spectrum options but also the process of delivering the digital dividend. The LTE, or long-term evolution, path in Australia is well and truly best practice in a regulatory sense. At its heart it recognises that spectrum is a scarce resource—like numbers, it is used but not consumed. It is a valuable public resource for which government seeks to maximise its returns. The release of TV spectrum in these bands is a significant benefit for the digital switch-over process, and the auction of spectrum in April this year will pave the way for next generation mobile services.

Specifically, the bill will be amending the Broadcasting Services Act and the Radiocommunications Act to facilitate this commencement before the spectrum is removed from the broadcasting services bands. One of the important things to note is that the amendments in the bill will in fact not affect the existing regulation that applies to datacasting services currently provided by the commercial broadcasters, such as the Seven Network's 4Me or Win Television's Gold and Nine's Extra and Ten's Television Shopping Network, which of course is a great relief to anyone who is obsessed, as I am, by FlavorStone Cookware as it is broadcast on the TV4Me channel. They will agree with me on this point.

It is important that the passage of this bill be facilitated without delay; otherwise, bidders in the April 2013 spectrum auction will not have the regulatory certainty or confidence about the rules that will be applied. I will turn to the issue of the auction price for this, because the member for Wentworth sought to make a deal out of it. We can see that the government in December 2012 provided the rules to give certainty for the digital dividend auction, setting a reserve price for the 700 megahertz spectrum at $1.36 per megahertz per pop. We then saw the member for Bradfield come out recently and argue that this is an extremely high reserve price—$1.36 per megahertz per head of population—and that, at a similar auction in the UK, it sold at the price of 23c per megahertz per head of population, one-sixth of the price that the government is expecting to get.

There are two points here. Firstly, spectrum is a scarce resource and the amount that was set by the minister, as has been noted in various places, is indeed in line with analysts' expectations. Secondly, the maths is simply wrong. Contrary to what the member for Bradfield published in Communications Day and elsewhere, the price paid, when you look at price per megahertz per population, is: 800 megahertz, 0.618 Australian dollars; 2.6 gigahertz FD, 0.104 Australian dollars; and 2.6 gigahertz TD, 0.06 Australian dollars. So although the amount in the UK—bearing in mind the UK is a vastly different market structure from Australia—is down, on the $1.36 per megahertz per population set by Minister Conroy, it is certainly not the 23c that the member for Wentworth and the member for Bradfield would have you believe. On top of all this, the market will decide the amount that is paid for the spectrum.

I do not think anyone on this side should be taking lessons on convergence, spectrum policy or auctions from those opposite, because this bill deals with datacasting services. The litany of public policy failure when it comes to datacasting under the watch of Senator Richard Alston, when he was minister, is unbelievable. On 17 January 2001 he issued a media release calling for competition in datacasting services. He decided to impose competition limits on the auction of datacasting transmitter licences. He said:

At this early stage of a new industry, it is important to encourage the maximum amount of competition in the market, and this is best done by imposing a limit on the number of licences that can be purchased by one player in each market.

They need not have bothered. In a round figure, guess how many people wanted to bid for this? Zero. By 10 May 2001 you can see that Minister Alston cancelled the auction of the datacasting transmitter licences because of lack of interest. Critics say the auction was always going to fail, because the government's list of rules over content was too restrictive to make the licences commercially appealing.

By December 2001 we had the announcement of a datacasting rules review. 'The federal government will commence a review of the datacasting rules in early 2002 and has released an issues paper', according to PC World. It went on to say, 'The purpose of the review is to ensure that the legislative framework for datacasting services provides the maximum scope for development of new and innovative digital services', but no one wanted it. Where do we go from there? By 2 April 2002 the headline in the Age was 'Datacasting deals look doomed again, says minister.' It said:

The government's attempts to revive datacasting are doomed, Communications Minister Richard Alston has acknowledged.

And:

But Senator Alston told The Age he did not believe the review would contain any viable propositions for rescuing datacasting.

No-one on this side will take any lessons from those opposite about spectrum auctions and the need for innovative planning and best-practice regulatory management in this area. The digital dividend and the LTE path that is being pursued by this government is regulatory best practice and those opposite have nothing to say when it comes to best practice in this country.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Dividend) Bill 2013. The government has previously announced that it will release 126 megahertz of broadcasting spectrum as a digital dividend. The general purpose of this bill is to address some discrepancies in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the Radiocommunications Act 1992 regarding the auction of the digital dividend spectrum, which is due to take place from April 2013.

Although the licences for the use of this spectrum are intended to be available from 1 January 2015, it is anticipated that the responsible body, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, may issue interim licences to make the spectrum available for use before the final clearing at the end of 2014. I understand that at this stage only three companies—Telstra, Optus and Vodafone—have even registered an interest in the auction.

During this interim phase, the auctioned spectrum would still formally be part of the broadcasting services bands. The bill amends the current datacasting regime by introducing the concept of 'designated datacasting services', which will be defined under the legislation to be those provided by a commercial television broadcasting service, a commercial radio broadcasting service or a national broadcaster.

Datacasting is defined in schedule 6 to the BSA as a service which delivers content in the form of text, data, speech, music or other sounds, visual images, or in any other form, or in any combination of forms, to persons having equipment appropriate for receiving that content, where the delivery of services uses the broadcasting services bands.

Datacasting licensees generally transmit information and education programs—parliamentary and court proceedings among others—but are unable to broadcast a range of material that may be considered to be the equivalent to television news, drama et cetera. By limiting the scope of datacasting, the bill will facilitate the commencement of telecommunications and broadband services in the digital dividend spectrum before it is removed from the broadcasting services bands.

The bill will also provide the minister with the ability to specify by legislative instrument another service of a specific kind to be a designated datacasting service. This will prevent a service provider providing a service similar to that of a commercial television broadcaster. The digital dividend will be removed from the broadcasting services band spectrum once the spectrum has been restacked.

This bill was introduced into parliament on 13 February 2013 and was then referred to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications by the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport on 13 March 2013—last week. The committee, of which I am a member, was given only five days—three working days—to call for submissions, consider the substantive impacts of the bill and then deliver its report today, 18 March 2013.

Of particular concern is that this means the committee had only three working days in which to receive submissions from stakeholders. The committee has, however, received a very detailed response from the Australian Wireless Audio Group, AWAG. The Police Federation of Australia have also published their concerns. I want to place on record my appreciation for the very considered input that these organisations have contributed in responding on their concerns with this bill, as well as for the input from the public hearing. I note that AWAG requested the opportunity to provide evidence and their point of view at the public hearing and were disappointed that they did not receive an invitation. Their letter says: 'Much of the key evidence given to the inquiry during its hearing was either factually incorrect or quite misleading. As you would be aware, we requested the opportunity to provide expert evidence to the hearing, but, for whatever reason, we were not afforded this opportunity.'

The central issue is whether the 694 to 820 megahertz spectrum that it is planned to sell will interfere with the estimated 120,000 wireless audio devices which currently operate in that spectrum. This means 120,000 wireless devices used in gymnasiums, churches, school halls and convention centres. Every single day, these organisations and many others use and rely on wireless audio equipment. They may use it at fetes, exercise classes or major events such as concerts.

Without a significant education campaign to retailers and users of wireless audio products about what the changes mean, this could have a major impact on the more than 32,000 wireless audio products sold to Australians every year. AWAG is seriously concerned that any individuals and organisations who have to replace or buy new equipment will not know that, from now until 31 December 2014, anything they buy will not be concordant with operable spectrum. If it then becomes essentially illegal for users of these products to operate in this spectrum after 31 December 2014, the question is: how many of the products currently used will essentially become useless?

On this issue, there are real concerns that the vast majority of the products purchased up until 2011 in this 700-megahertz range will no longer be able to operate. AWAG has estimated that 80 per cent of users will 'legally time out at the end of 2014' and:

In performance terms the products they currently use will continue to work and the products that they will be required to replace their existing product will offer little or no technical benefits to them …

This has the potential to cost the community hundreds of thousands of dollars in replacing equipment that in performance terms works perfectly.

We still do not have a definitive answer from the government about what will happen come 31 December 2014. For five long years, AWAG has been in negotiations with the Labor government but have had no firm commitment as to whether the sale of the spectrum will not interfere with wireless audio devices. Instead, they have this Labor government being reckless and unresponsive to the major ramifications of this spectrum auction.

The committee's report does indicate that some of the concerns raised do not specifically address the technical elements contained in today's bill. The committee report states:

AWAG’s concerns generally go to the implementation of the broader ‘digital dividend’ policy rather than to the substance …

Insofar as the bill is specifically about the time line of granting licences in an interim period, the great interest from a stakeholder organisation such as AWAG and its members does reflect their genuine concern about the consequences of the sale of this spectrum and the impact of this spectrum reallocation past 31 December 2014 on wireless radio. The committee's report itself states:

The Committee considers that while these concerns do not attach to the substance of the bill under review, they indicate broader concerns about spectrum reallocation and its impact on consumers. To this end, the Committee looks forward to seeing DBCDE and ACMA making substantial and rapid progress—

on priority areas including the 'possible limited utility after restacking' and the 'government’s decision about restacking and new whitespace for wireless audio technology'.

In reality, after years of fruitless negotiation with the government, only to suddenly face changes brought on so suddenly and without adequate forewarning, of course affected individuals and organisations will continue to raise their concerns in any appropriate forum afforded to them. AWAG stated quite clearly in their letter to the committee: 'We reiterate that a hearing called on less than a day's notice, after years of inactivity, is a recipe for bad public policy. We implore you to consider the full implications of this bill very carefully.'

Furthermore, the Police Federation of Australia has written to members of this House outlining their concerns about the impacts that this bill may have for police and emergency services across Australia and their vitally important need for radio spectrum. They want to know what will happen for their 56,000 police officers in Australian states and territories and the communications capabilities of these first responders during times of natural disasters and other emergencies. They believe that the sale of the spectrum to telecommunications companies does not meet the objectives of the Radiocommunications Act 1992, that the act is to 'provide for management of the radiofrequency spectrum in order to', as per section 3(b)(i), 'make adequate provision of the spectrum for use by agencies involved in the defence or national security of Australia, law enforcement or the provision of emergency services'. There still remains a lot of doubt about how these emergency services will be able to use telecommunications devices during natural disasters, and to date they still have not received an adequate response from the minister or the department.

I would also like to share the concerns raised by AWAG about the approach taken by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy towards so-called reforms in his portfolio. Rushing through this legislation today, giving the committee only five days to consider the bill in detail on an issue that has the potential to impact on so many thousands of community groups across the country, is simply not acceptable. The minister is also trying to ram through parliament other atrocious and undemocratic legislation—the very Orwellian-sounding News Media (Self-regulation) Bill 2013, which will legislate that a body be regulated to self-regulate itself and will be overseen by the government's Public Interest Media Advocate. These are further changes from a communications minister who, in his own political interest, wants to hamper free speech and significantly degrade the way in which the media is able to operate in this country.

Rushing through legislation without the parliament having enough time to adequately scrutinise their proposals, is not a new practice from the Labor government. In this case, it is representative of the arrogant way in which this minister operates. Last year, the communications minister visited New York and spoke at a conference there, telling his audience that he had unfettered legal power. To quote the minister:

That means I am in charge of spectrum auctions, and if I say to everyone in this room, 'if you want to bid in our spectrum auction, you'd better wear red underpants on your head', I've got some news for you. You'll be wearing them on your head.

This again demonstrates the minister's very arrogant and bullying attitude towards this industry. We see it today with his attitude to wireless radio users in what has occurred in this government's failure to follow proper parliamentary process in the sale of digital spectrum. His attitude and his clear desire to wield power is also evident in his attempt to control and regulate the press and destroy freedom of speech—the only time in this country's history in peacetime. If the Labor government passes these draconian media proposals, freedom of speech will be at the whim of some government official, telling Australians what we can and cannot see in the media.

It is always concerning when this Labor government introduces legislation and brings on debate before the parliament without following proper parliamentary processes and scrutiny. After much inaction in this area, the Labor government gave the infrastructure and communications committee three working days to call for submissions, hold hearings, investigate issues and to report on this bill today. It is vital that, in the interests of those who operate more than 120,000 devices from schools, churches and convention centres, the government provides clarity on the issues I have raised today and certainty for thousands of community users.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In my few minutes, I would like to point to a couple of issues in relation to the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Dividend) Bill 2013. These spectrum sales have been characterised as the waterfront property of the spectrum world, able to attract the highest returns for the benefit of the Australian taxpayer and, frankly, the federal budget. That is the way in which this has been marketed, but, as you have heard from previous speakers, this waterfront property is actually occupied. There are people occupying this property completely lawfully—not licence-free as some have sought to suggest, but with the kind of licence that relates to the device that they are using. The idea that you could achieve optimum returns for waterfront property while there are lawful occupants there already is a little bit of the fiction that is revealed through the hastily convened inquiry into this bill. The government has sought to ram it through as though there is no problem to be found, no issue to be discussed, no need for a more considered process.

What the House inquiry revealed was that there is a range of citizens concerned about what is happening. There is an idea that, once the restacking has been concluded and the simulcasting activities of the broadcast television networks have ended, the spectrum is available for free use, unencumbered, for an attractive price paid by bidders. That has been touched on by earlier contributors. It is not quite so clear and it is not quite so straightforward. In fact, it is disappointing that it has got to this point. After the legislation was introduced, the opposition sought—and, to the credit of the government, was afforded—an inquiry to examine these issues, because they have been percolating away for some time but have not gained any traction anywhere. The Australian Wireless Audio Group and its many members—I think it represents about 120,000 people who use the technology—have been struggling for some time to get their voices heard. They have made a number of presentations to ACMA, outlining a range of things. I have one of the presentations here. They have been engaged in discussions for some two years, but no clarity has emerged about where users of this 694–820 megahertz range should re-establish their activities once that spectrum has been sold for telecommunications purposes, as has been outlined. After years—in fact, five years—of dialogue with ACMA, the department, Minister Conroy and his office, they are no clearer on many of the key issues that confront their sector. This is why we felt it necessary to bring forward this issue so that it could be properly considered.

It is no small thing and it is no small investment for those who are in the radio wireless space that they are confronted with great uncertainty after 30 December 2014. On 1 January 2015, someone else will want to use this space. I have been directly advised by parties interested in this spectrum that they expect it to be free and unencumbered. They do not anticipate having to pay waterfront prices for something where people are already there and suitable arrangements have not been put in place to transition those current lawful occupants of this spectrum band into some other arrangements. So I think it is actually the right thing for the government, for ACMA, for the department and for this parliament to ensure that that tidy, predictable and timely transition occurs. We have lost five years. We have lost two years or more of engagement and still we are here hearing that this is very much a work-in-progress. If you want to get top dollar for the so-called waterfront property, making sure it is unencumbered is a smart thing to do.

It is also the responsible thing to do for those who have done nothing wrong other than simply purchase wireless audio products. Some 150,000 of these units are operating in our economy and in our communities, of which it is thought about 120,000 of them will run into some difficulty maintaining the use of the spectrum they currently utilise.

In the inquiry hearings, department and ACMA officials sought to suggest that this is not such a big deal. Perhaps for low- and mid-range priced devices there is some scope for them to be in the wrong band and that it might not be available after this spectrum is sold. There was not a great deal of empathy for their circumstance. For the more expensive equipment there is a degree of tunability that would enable them to be recalibrated to use another area of frequency for their purpose. It is interesting, though, that that failed to ignore the limitations on that tunability and there is still some uncertainty in some regions across the country about where that white space will now appear to which a device may be able to be tuned. When you look at the actual equipment itself, even the highest specified and most expensive products—of which only a few of those units are operating in our economy—have an agility of about 80 megahertz, depending on which product is being sold. Moreover, the bulk of them have an agility of tunability that is around 10 to 20 megahertz. So if you quote not within a bull's roar of the available white space, no amount of fiddling to retune will get you into that space. So the assurance that people have that there is certain tunability seems to ignore the technical limitations of some of devices that are well and truly in the marketplace, still being sold today, lawfully being purchased and being put to good use by a range of people in our community.

I need to try and communicate to the parliament and particularly to the members opposite: this is no small deal. This technology is used very widely across so many parts of our community and our economy from educational institutions, including schools, universities and TAFEs, church groups, church organisations—a number of whom, I know, have raised funds after many years of effort to make sure that there are good communications where the pastor, priest or vicar can deliver an animated address and engage freely with the congregation. These radio devices of some quality in their sound and their functionality have been seen to be of such a priority that they have attracted a lot of fundraising effort amongst churches.

It is used by those in the performing arts space: I saw a piece pointing to the number of these devices being used at the Eurovision Song Contest over the last little window of time. I think that, at the most recent Eurovision Song Contest alone, some 100 of these devices were being used at one venue, with a broader spread of capability. The use of these devices has grown exponentially over recent years, reflecting their appeal, functionality and quality.

This technology is used by independent musicians and other entertainers; those involved in putting together things like wedding videos; musical theatre groups; the convention industry; the theme parks on the Gold Coast, which often involve music and theatre; events, including major events like the great grand prix in our state of Victoria; auctioneers; and the fitness industry. Some might think it was not from my engagement in aerobics that I became alert to this, but I am alert to it and I need to point out that this is a serious matter.

Across our community this is an area where, clearly, the government itself is simply not tuned in. The efforts to raise these concerns have been manifold. There is still a lack of clarity about what is required. There is poor consumer information out there. Product is still being imported that seeks to operate within a spectrum range that will no longer be available after it is sold. There is no clear transition strategy in place.

The House committee had little more than five minutes to deal with these issues. It is quite remarkable: the parliament decided to have an inquiry and, as I recall, invited submissions to be received the following day. Yet the committee actually started at 11 am, one hour before the time for submissions closed. No-one other than the Commonwealth officials was afforded the opportunity to engage directly with the committee. We have seen time and again that there is some conjecture and difference of opinion between what the officials are saying and what the reality is on the ground.

I am confident this can be resolved. But it has to be taken more seriously than it has been today. I saw this when I was the shadow broadband and communications spokesperson for the coalition, when the CDMA was shut down. It was: 'Oh, don't worry about it. Hardly anyone uses CDMA.' That was nonsense. CDMA chips were embedded in so many telemetry products in the monitoring of water and dam releases and on farms and all sorts of things. They were embedded in all that technology. So, whilst you might have been able to point to mobile phone users, the decision ignored a whole industry where remote communications and control and monitoring devices had CDMA embedded in them.

This is almost a repeat. It is as if the minister for red undies has learnt nothing from that CDMA experience. I urge Minister Conroy to take this more seriously. These are good folks operating right across our economy and our community. They have done nothing wrong and they deserve more consideration than they have been afforded to date.

The government members on that committee had strong sway over the committee's recommendations, but they still recognised that there was a need for some urgent work. They urged the department and ACMA to make 'substantial and rapid progress' on these priority issues. I concur with that recommendation.

The coalition does not want to impede the sale of the spectrum. Whether it is like harbour front or other valuable land—it is Mornington Peninsula real estate!—the reality is that purchasers do not want it to be encumbered at the time it becomes available to them. That is not the trajectory we are on now. In their interest, and to optimise the returns for the Commonwealth, this is something that needs to be dealt with. For the tens of thousands of people who use this technology, whether it be in their business, in their everyday life as a core component of their performance efforts, in churches and community groups, in learning and education, in lectures or in the activities of auctioneers—whatever it might be—they deserve some consideration as well.

The committee's recommendations point to the need for education and an awareness campaign. This is a world in which technology is plug and play. I think most people using white-space wireless audio devices would not have the foggiest idea what spectrum they were operating within. I do not think they would know. All they know is that they have bought a lawful product. They are using it lawfully. Yet the spectrum which they depend on is being sold from underneath their feet and no-one has bothered to tell them. That is just poor form, particularly when some of these organisations have invested heavily and do not have the cash to go and change their equipment and buy something new. They do not have the technical guidance about where retuning is possible, where that new white space might be, and they do not have the responsiveness of ACMA and the department to say, 'Well, we have got some retunability but we cannot get anywhere near the new white space that you are guiding us to.' This is why the education awareness campaign that has been advocated by AWAG and others needs to be activated as a matter of urgency. There needs to be some greater clarity on products that are sold and some product warning system so that purchasers buying this technology know of the fate that is ahead of them, that they may well be faced with technology that is useless because they cannot access the spectrum for which it was designed.

As a matter of some urgency there needs to be finalising of where that restacking and new white space opportunities will be so there will be a much greater collaborative effort than I have seen evidenced in this to date. It is important that that work be done. This is why the government should embrace the coalition's measured and thoughtful amendment that seeks to make sure that the minister satisfies himself or herself in writing that they are satisfied that this broadcasting services spectrum is available and that alternative uses have been dealt with and that there is adequate spectrum available with no interference for potential device class licences. What this is basically saying is, get it organised. Do your job properly. Make sure there is a thoughtful and considered transition strand and do not leave 120,000 devices silent because the government has not had the wherewithal to provide spectrum capability for them.

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

I am pleased to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Dividend) Bill 2013. In the time available to me today I want to make the point that the allocation of the spectrum which is the subject of this bill arising from the digital dividend is of the first importance. The second point I want to make is that the measures contained in this bill make sense as far as they go. But I thirdly want to argue that the bill does not go far enough towards managing the digital dividend process in a way that would achieve the best outcome for Australians.

It is uncontentious that the digital dividend process is of the first importance. The digital dividend spectrum is enormously important for the delivery of mobile communications services. In particular this spectrum is expected to be used by mobile phone operators to deliver the next generation of wireless broadband services, the so-called fourth-generation or LTE, long-term evolution, services. Already millions of Australians have 3G data services on their mobile handsets, offering download speeds which are typically two to three megabits per second. 4G services are going to be much faster with download speeds typically of between five and 10 megabits per second, and theoretically the ability to go a lot higher, although, as is always the case with any wireless network, it is dependent on the number of other devices also accessing the same base station.

It is clear that the amount of data being delivered over mobile networks is exploding. According to the industry regulator, ACMA, there are estimates that data demand will be 30 times 2007 levels by 2015 and 500 times by 2020. So there is an absolute explosion in the quantity of data being sent back and forth over mobile phone networks and that is expected to continue at rates which are almost incomprehensible. Accordingly the allocation of new spectrum to support these services is absolutely critical for both economic and social reasons. Both Telstra and Optus have already launched initial 4G services on their existing spectrum but the mobile carriers need more spectrum for the enormous volumes which are expected as services continue to grow. This means that it is critical to get the policy settings right for the auction of spectrum which is forthcoming, and anything which blocks this spectrum being available as soon as possible is a significant problem. Against that backdrop, the measure contained in this bill is one which makes sense, as far as it goes—and that is the point to which I now wish to turn.

The essential purpose of this bill is to remove a potential technical impediment to some of the spectrum being used as quickly as is conveniently possible. The root cause of the problem is that the spectrum which is shortly to be auctioned falls into what is known as the broadcasting services band—that is to say, the block of spectrum that was set aside many years ago for use for television broadcasting, and that block of spectrum has been set aside to be regulated specifically under the Broadcasting Services Act.

This block of spectrum was formerly used only for analogue television broadcasting. Following regulatory changes some 12 or 13 years ago, the introduction of digital television has meant that other parts of that same block of spectrum are now also used for digital. Digital broadcasting of course is much more efficient in its use of spectrum and, amongst other things, you do not need the same kinds of guard bands that you need with spectrum for analogue broadcasting. Accordingly, you can pack the services in together more efficiently across the spectrum.

In 2015 the analog broadcasting services around the nation are due to be switched off. Of course, in some areas the switch-off has already occurred, but by 2015 it will have occurred around Australia, including in the major metropolitan areas. Once we get to that point, then we can have what is known, attractively, as 'the restack'. This is where all of the spectrum which is presently used for television broadcasting is crunched down to one end of the existing spectrum block, taking advantage of the fact, as I previously mentioned, that when you are broadcasting only in digital you can be much more efficient in your use of spectrum. Once that restack occurs, that will free up that significant block of spectrum which is going to be reallocated through an auction process and is expected, as I have indicated, to be used for 4G mobile data services.

The complexity here is that the auction is going to occur a little later this year, but that restack process will not be completed until sometime later. The specific consequence of that is that, until the restack occurs, all of the spectrum in the relevant band continues to be treated, as a matter of law, as falling within that broadcasting services band, and is therefore subject to all of the relevant provisions in the Broadcasting Services Act, including the provisions dealing with something called datacasting.

Datacasting is a concept which emerged in the late nineties. It was intended to deal with the prospect of data services being delivered within the broadcasting services band. Unfortunately, datacasting has never really taken off as we had hoped at the time it would.

When I say 'we', I speak as a former adviser to the then communications minister, Senator Richard Alston. May I note in passing what a class act he was—something that I am reminded of every day when I look at the dismal performance of the current incumbent in the office of minister for communications.

Datacasting was not intended to be a two-way activity; it was intended to be a one-way use of the broadcasting services band, with the return path, if any, to be carried over a different medium such as over the copper wires. Nevertheless, there is a good legal argument that the existing datacasting provisions would, inadvertently, if their application were not modified, apply to the new activities of the mobile phone companies and their customers should data be transmitted within the spectrum range which is shortly to be auctioned. And the practical effect of that would be that, if this act were not to be amended, spectrum which is purchased this year following the auction could not be used until 2015 for fear that those using it would be in breach of the datacasting provisions of the act, and that of course would be an undesirable outcome. It would be unfortunate indeed if the most rapid possible introduction of the new 4G services was to be delayed as a consequence of the essentially unintended quirk in the drafting that the existing datacasting provisions would capture the new activities of the mobile phone companies as they commence the provision of 4G services over this spectrum.

Accordingly, this bill would amend the Broadcasting Services Act and the Radiocommunications Act to allow telecommunications services possible access to the spectrum known as the digital dividend. This is done by introducing the concept of designated datacasting services, and this drafting technique, we are told by the government, will facilitate the commencement of telecommunications and broadband services in the digital dividend spectrum before it is removed from the broadcasting services band. As far as it goes, that is clearly a sensible policy measure because, if the amendments contained in this bill were not to be made, the datacasting provisions could potentially block the spectrum being used before 2015. This bill, should it be passed into law, would clear that blockage. That is a sensible thing to do and, so far as it goes, we on this side of the House have no objection to it.

The third point I want to come to is that, while this is a sensible measure, it does not go enough towards managing the digital dividend process to achieve the best outcomes for Australians. We have seen a series of very grave errors made in the public policy process which has been carried out by this government to give effect to the reallocation of the digital dividend spectrum. For example, the process of setting an unprecedentedly high reserve price for the spectrum auction of $1.36 per megahertz per head of population is likely to have very adverse effects as to the development of a competitive market in these 4G services. We can see that the approach that the government is taking is well out of line with the approach being taken by governments in other countries. According to research by Goldman Sachs, the average price being charged across eight countries was 80c per megahertz per head. That is a lot less than $1.36 per megahertz per head of population. I might add that that 80c was arrived at through an auction process rather than being set as the reserve price, rather than being set as the floor price. So the government is going into this process setting an extremely high price which may very well discourage significant players from bidding.

When you look at some other reference points, it appears to be an unjustifiably high number. It implies total proceeds from the auction of nearly $2.8 billion. The highest amount previously raised in an auction in Australia was a bit over $1.3 billion when the 1.8 gigahertz spectrum was auctioned in the year 2000, albeit for about two-thirds as much spectrum. It is also materially higher than the amount that was raised in the recent British spectrum auction, where the final selling price was 23c per megahertz per population, or about one-sixth of the price the government seems to be expecting here.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Rudd-Gillard government's desperate search for revenue has led to a short-term decision to set a very high reserve price, with the likely consequence that long-term policy outcomes in the mobile data market will be very, very adversely affected. This is a terrible piece of policy for a government that says it wants to encourage broadband services. It is a piece of policy which tends to ignore the real reason that spectrum auctions are now widely used in most advanced economies as the means of allocating the scarce public resource of radio frequency spectrum. The principal purpose of using an auction is to allocate this scarce spectrum to the purpose which has the highest value to the community. Raising money is a secondary purpose, not a primary purpose. Unfortunately, this government seems to have got that the wrong way around. The consequences look likely to be quite severe. Already, one potential bidder, Vodafone, has said that it will not bid, and another, Optus, says it regards the prices as unreasonably high and is considering its position. Bear in mind that the government itself has noted, in the regulatory impact statement it released in February 2012, that 'the three incumbents'—namely Telstra, Optus and Vodafone—'are the entities most likely to participate in the auction'.

If one public policy error which has been made in relation to the proposed allocation of this digital dividend spectrum is to set a very high reserve price, another public policy error is the approach that the minister has taken to the so-called competition limits. These are the rules which limit the amount of spectrum which any one player is permitted to buy at the auction. Originally, in early 2012, the minister said that a maximum of 20 megahertz could be acquired by one bidder, but recently that maximum has been increased to 25 megahertz. In other words, as well as setting a very high reserve price the minister has also increased the amount of spectrum that the dominant player, Telstra, would be able to buy.

Of course, thanks to its lucrative NBN deal with the Gillard government, Telstra is expected to receive some $11 billion, so it is very well placed to spend up big on spectrum. I make no criticism of Telstra here, but I do strongly criticise the Rudd-Gillard government for the significant public policy errors it is making in relation to the allocation of this vital digital dividend spectrum. These errors will play out over a very long period of time, and the consequence is likely to be a market for the provision of mobile broadband services which is less competitive and, accordingly, less vigorous and less dynamic than it ought to be, and would be, if the government had adopted better public policy settings. We are all in agreement that the allocation of this digital dividend spectrum is a public policy issue of high importance. What this country needs is a vigorous, competitive mobile broadband marketplace with as many players as possible, and setting the auction rules is a key policy lever to achieve that outcome. Unfortunately, the government has taken a very poor approach to this vital question. So, while the measures in this bill are sensible as far as they go, they do not address the most pressing problem in this area.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Dividend) Bill 2013, which amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the Radiocommunications Act 1992 to allow telecommunications services possible access to the spectrum known as the digital dividend while it is still part of the broadcasting services bands. The bill amends the current datacasting regime by introducing the concept of designated datacasting services, which will be defined under the legislation to be those provided by a commercial television broadcasting service, a commercial radio broadcasting service or a national broadcaster. Datacasting is defined in schedule 6 of the Broadcasting Services Act as:

…a service that delivers content:

(a) whether in the form of text; or

(b) whether in the form of data; or

(c) whether in the form of speech, music or other sounds; or

(d) whether in the form of visual images (animated or otherwise); or

(e) whether in any other form; or

(f) whether in any combination of forms;

to persons having equipment appropriate for receiving that content, where the delivery of the service uses the broadcasting services bands.

The broadcasting services bands are in turn defined as:

(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.

Datacasting licensees generally transmit information and education programs, parliamentary and court proceedings, text and still images, interactive computer games, electronic mail, and internet content but are unable to broadcast a range of material which may be considered to be the equivalent to television news, drama, sports, music, weather, documentary, lifestyle or entertainment programs, or commercial radio programs. The spectrum is an important public resource and governments around the world regulate it and charge for its use. Currently in Australia, broadcasters pay licence fees to the Australian Communications and Media Authority—ACMA—for the use of their allocated spectrum on which to broadcast.

ACMA has noted three key processes are required to realise the digital dividend. These are: (1) conversion of analogue televisions broadcasting to digital transmission, known as switchover; (2) clearance of a contiguous block of spectrum; and (3) allocation of the speared spectrum. In June 2010, the government announced as part of the transition to digital television that there will be 126 megahertz in the upper ultra-high frequency band spectrum released as a digital dividend. The digital switchover has been in process under the Commercial Television Conversion Scheme since June 1999 and under the National Television Conversion Scheme since February 2000, and will be completed by 31 December 2013. The released dividend will be auctioned off in April 2013, just next month, and is expected to be cleared by for use by January 2015. ACMA has arranged a combinatorial clock auction process which will be used to allocate the spectrum and will commence on 16 April 2013—less than one month away. Licences issued for the 700 megahertz band as a result of the digital dividend are to commence on 1 January 2015. Potential bidders have been notified by ACMA that, should a broadcaster vacate spectrum in the 700 megahertz band before the successful bidder's licence period commences, the regulator will consider applications for interim licences. These will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Only commercial and national broadcasters will be required to hold a datacasting licence for the delivery of datacasting services in the broadcasting spectrum. The amendments in the bill will not affect existing regulation which applies to datacasting services which are currently provided by the commercial broadcasters such as WIN Television's GOLD and the Seven Network's 4ME. These services will not be affected by this bill and will be able to continue in accordance with their present datacasting licences.

There is currently a long delay between when the telecommunications companies pay for the spectrum and when they actually have access to it. The delay between the auction process and the commencement of licences for successful auction bidders is to ensure there is sufficient time for the comprehensive clearing of digital television services from the digital dividend spectrum to be completed. However, it may be possible in some geographical areas for new services to commence while spectrum is still considered to be part of the broadcasting services bands.

In the government's efforts to achieve a budget surplus, the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy intervened in the digital dividend auction and set a reserve price of $1.36 a megahertz per head of population and a minimum purchase of 5 megahertz for the spectrum—a price considered to be high by international standards. At this rate it will cost a company about $1.5 billion to buy enough spectrum to cover 22.6 million people. To quote my colleague the member for Bradfield:

This is a terrible piece of policy for a government that says it wants to encourage broadband services.

He is right, of course. Spectrum is a scarce and valuable public resource, and the high reserve price may result in this important spectrum not being allocated. Telstra and Optus are the only companies registered to bid in the April auction and have criticised the high auction price. Optus called the pricing of the spectrum 'unworkable', and has warned that this pricing will restrict investment and drive up the price for essential telecommunications services.

The Police Federation of Australia has been pressing for radio spectrum for police and emergency services across Australia to ensure they have effective mobile broadband communications, especially during times of natural disasters—and haven't we seen some dreadful natural disasters occur in Australia in recent years? The need for access to such communications has certainly been highlighted during the floods, bushfires and cyclones. I know the emergency services in my electorate of Riverina would agree that such access to the spectrum would have been of assistance during the floods of 2010 and 2012, and also during the January bushfires which brought national media attention to my region—the sort of national media attention that you do not want. Can I add as an aside that William Belling, who on Saturday was recognised for 72 years of service to the Humula, Oberne Creek and Tarcutta rural fire services, talked about the marvellous improvements in technology, comparing what was available to him when he fought his first fire as a 14-year-old in 1940 to now. This was on Saturday, at the local RSL hall at Tarcutta, where 30 medals were awarded to firefighting volunteers to recognise their combined service of 1,187 years fighting fires and working as volunteers at motor vehicle accidents.

This is relevant to this debate because these people all acknowledge the fact that better telecommunications services are vitally needed, with so many areas of black spots—certainly there were black spots after the fires—for mobile telecommunications. I welcome the member for Cowper, who I know is fighting hard for better telecommunications services in his shadow portfolio area; I know how much work he has done in that regard. Better mobile telecommunications services are vital to the people of the bush—as you would well know too, Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell. Unfortunately, there are so many areas in our electorates that are not covered by good telecommunications services. To have better access to mobile services during times of disaster would save a lot of people's property and would bring the necessary alerts to save a lot of people's stock. It just makes good sense.

As I was saying, the Police Federation of Australia is calling for 20 megahertz of the released spectrum to be set aside for public safety. They believe this should be done under the Radiocommunications Act 1992, which refers to making adequate provision of the spectrum for law enforcement and emergency services. We really need to listen to the Police Federation of Australia in this regard. We need to listen to the advice given by those brave firefighters of Humula, Oberne Creek and Tarcutta. We need to listen to the State Emergency Service people in New South Wales, the Volunteer Rescue Association people across New South Wales and certainly the volunteers who fight fires and help after floods and during times of natural crisis right across Australia when they say that we need better mobile telecommunications. We need, as the Police Federation is calling for, 20 megahertz of the released spectrum to be set aside for public safety—if for nothing else than to save people's lives. It just makes good sense. I am sure the member for Cowper agrees with me. Public safety mobile broadband is critical to emergency services, to ensure that they have effective, modern and interoperable communications to undertake their essential functions.

The bills also limit the scope of datacasting and will facilitate the commencement of telecommunications and broadband services in the digital dividend spectrum before it is removed from the broadcasting services bands. The bill will also provide the minister with the ability to specify by legislative instrument another service of a specific kind to be a designated datacasting service. This will prevent a service provider from providing a service similar to that of a commercial television broadcaster. This provision will allow for flexibility to expand the scope of the datacasting regime if the circumstances require it. This may apply where a provider seeks to use the broadcasting spectrum to provide a datacasting service that the minister considers should be subject to the conditions of service and codes of practice that apply to licensed datacasting services. The digital dividend will be removed from the broadcasting services band spectrum once the spectrum has been restacked.

This is a vital debate. This is a vital piece of legislation. The coalition supports this bill but, as the member for Bradfield quite correctly asked, do elements of it go far enough?

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

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Dividend) Bill 2013 and commend the member for Riverina for his contribution to the debate. This bill provides yet another example of the government's complete failure to do anything properly. The switch to digital television is a process that is supported by both sides of parliament. The restack is not a partisan or political issue, and I believe the coalition has been cooperative in its approach to the issue of the digital restack. This process is not something that should be causing concern in the community. In fact, it should be a relatively simple behind-the-scenes technical change that will have a limited impact on the general public. But, once again, the government has got it wrong. The result is that thousands of individuals, community groups, churches, schools, concert promoters, gyms and musicians may need to buy new wireless audio equipment at a collective cost of millions of dollars.

I will talk about these problems in more detail shortly, but I would first like to turn my attention to the substance of the bill. Digital television uses frequency bandwidths much more efficiently than analogue signals. As a result, the switch to digital television will free up valuable blocks of spectrum that can be used for purposes other than broadcasting. This is a substantial block of spectrum in the broadcasting services band, and it will be permanently freed up for other uses from the start of 2015. However, the television networks have agreed to switch off their analogue signals well in advance of 1 January 2015. In the interim, ACMA will consider allocating interim licences to the successful bidders in the government's digital dividend spectrum auction, which will take place next month. However, the current regulatory system would impose significant restrictions on anyone using spectrum in the broadcasting services band for anything other than broadcasting.

In the long term, once the digital dividend spectrum is removed from the broadcasting services band, these regulations will not apply, but there is a need for an interim solution, which this bill provides. At first glance, this bill is a welcome development. Indeed, it makes sense to give the auction winners access to this spectrum as soon as possible so they can begin offering improved services to the public. We know the demand for wireless data services is increasing exponentially, so facilitating access to early rollout of LTE broadband services is a positive step. However, the government's typically sloppy handling of this issue has created another major problem for the thousands of Australians who use wireless audio devices. The Australian Wireless Audio Group at the Australian Commercial and Entertainment Technologies Association is the key body representing the interests of wireless audio equipment users, and they have highlighted a number of problems with the government's current approach to the digital dividend process. Wireless audio devices include things such as wireless microphones, which are used in hundreds of applications around the country, and ear monitoring devices, which are commonly used by musicians and media presenters. Wireless audio devices use the unallocated 'white space' between the frequencies used by licenced broadcasters. Users of wireless audio devices do not need to apply and pay for a licence to use their equipment like a broadcaster, but they operate their equipment on the basis that they must not cause interference to broadcasters operating in the same frequency range.Most people using wireless audio devices are not aware of how these products work. The devices are generally quite user-friendly and are operated on a plug-and-play basis.

The spectrum which makes up the digital dividend is from 694 megahertz to 820 megahertz. This is also the most popular range for wireless audio devices, with an estimated 120,000 devices operating in this range. As a result, frequency that is currently white space could shortly be occupied by telecommunications services. Anyone operating a wireless audio device which interferes with a licenced user on the same frequency is in breach of the regulations. Because the government has failed to develop a comprehensive transition plan or conduct an education campaign on the implications of the digital dividend, many people will suddenly find themselves using equipment that operates on the same frequency as a licenced user—and they will therefore potentially be acting illegally. The list of people and organisations that could be affected by these changes is long: schools, churches, broadcasters, concert promoters, entertainment providers, musicians, the fitness industry, auctioneers, major event organisers and even the spruiker at your local jewellery store or pharmacy.

The key problem here is that the vast majority of people using these devices are not communications specialists. The people using these devices are volunteers, salespeople, musicians, tradesmen, presenters et cetera. They cannot be expected to know how these impending changes will affect them and the legality of their use of those devices. Many of these people will have purchased wireless audio devices in the past few years in good faith and will find themselves with a perfectly functional but illegal device in just over 18 months.

At the very minimum, there is an urgent need for the government to engage with the sector and develop a plan to help educate people who use wireless audio devices about the impending changes. Until some sort of education campaign is launched, retailers will continue to sell these devices and consumers will continue to buy them. As far as I know, the government has not even given formal notification that suppliers should stop importing wireless audio devices that operate in the spectrum above 694 megahertz. Even if someone buys a wireless audio device which operates in spectrum outside the digital dividend frequency—that is, below 694 megahertz—there is no guarantee that it will still be compliant with the regulations once the restack of digital television frequencies is completed.

It has also been brought to my attention that, in some areas where the UHF band is very congested, there may be very little white space available in which to operate a wireless audio device. Particularly for large events, which may use multiple wireless audio devices each of which needs to operate on a unique frequency, there may be insufficient white space available to operate the necessary number of devices. This may prove to be a significant problem in areas like the Gold Coast or the CBD areas of Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane. To give you an example of how this may impact on a major event, I have been told that one major Australian reality television show uses up to 60 wireless audio devices at a time. The Australian Wireless Audio Group has made at least nine submissions to the government or ACMA about this issue over the past seven years, so the government cannot claim to be ignorant of it. I do not pretend to have all the answers, but it is very clear that the government needs to improve its engagement with this sector and come up with some answers.

In conclusion, this bill does not, on the surface, appear to be particularly objectionable, but, as is usual with this government, the devil is in the detail. The minister is obviously too preoccupied with regulating the media and attempting to rescue his disastrous NBN project to attend to fine details, such as how musicians and fitness instructors will be able to use their wireless microphones after the digital dividend process is complete. Thankfully, the coalition has done the hard work for the minister and we will be moving an amendment to this bill which will require the minister to ensure that ACMA has made suitable provision for wireless audio devices before allowing any alternative uses of the broadcasting services band.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure some constituents of mine are at home tuning into this parliamentary broadcast and wondering what this Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Dividend) Bill 2013 is all about. We have heard a lot about spectrums and auctions and specific devices. I would like to spend a few moments trying to put that into a broader context for the benefit of my constituents.

What is this bill all about? It is about managing our spectrum. As you know, spectrum is the space through which radio waves are transmitted. Traditionally it was used to transmit a radio broadcasting signal for the benefit of wireless radio listeners. Then we saw the development of TV, radio telegraph, radio telecommunications, radio communications through phones and faxes and, as the member for Cowper discussed in his contribution to this debate, the use of radio spectrum by in-house and in-venue wireless devices—from remote-controlled motor devices to radio-controlled microphones and sound systems. In fact it would be hard to find a business venue where there was not some use of a wireless device which relied on radio transmission.

The development of digital technologies has enhanced the capacity, and enabled a more efficient use, of the available spectrum—which is a limited resource. There is a limited amount of spectrum we can use commercially and for other purposes. The development of digital technologies enables us to use that more efficiently and enables us to use radio waves in our spectrum for more and more services—multichannel broadcasting, enhanced telephony and wireless broadband, for example.

This legislation comes about because of the development of the digitisation of broadcasting. It enables us to free up a whole heap of spectrum which was once used for broadcasting TV and radio transmissions. It enables us to restack and re-use that spectrum for other purposes. It is obviously a valuable resource. The government will be using an auction mechanism to get the best return for that valuable resource.

The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Dividend) Bill 2013 makes minor amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the Radiocommunications Act 1992 to facilitate the commencement of telecommunications and broadband service in the digital dividend spectrum before that spectrum is removed from the broadcasting services band. The release of television spectrum is a significant benefit of the digital switchover process. The auction of this spectrum in April 2013 will pave the way for next generation mobile services in Australia such as 4G mobile services.

Following the completion of the auction, the Australian Communications and Media Authority may agree to allow the successful bidders at the digital dividend auction to commence services prior to the digital dividend spectrum being redesignated out of the broadcasting services bands. ACMA will consider on a case-by-case basis any applications from incoming spectrum licensees who seek early access to the digital dividend spectrum.

The bill will amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the Radiocommunications Act 1992 to remove an impediment to the potential early commencement of telecommunications and broadcasting services in the digital dividend spectrum by clarifying that these new services will not be covered by the datacasting licensing regime. Specifically, the bill will amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to generally limit the application of the datacasting regime to those datacasting services currently provided by commercial and national free-to-air television broadcasters.

The bill will also amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to provide the minister with the ability to specify, by legislative instrument, the kinds of datacasting services that would be considered designated datacasting services and will therefore be required to hold datacasting licences. This will provide the minister with the ability to expand the scope of the datacasting regime if the circumstances warrant.

Finally, the bill will make minor amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the Radiocommunications Act 1992 to effectively implement the main elements of the bill and will repeal a spent provision that refers to a statutory review that has already been conducted and tabled in parliament. The amendments in the bill will not affect the existing regulation that applies to datacasting services currently provided by the commercial broadcasters such as the Seven Network's 4ME, Win Television's GOLD, the Nine Network's Extra and Network Ten's Television Shopping Network. These services will be unaffected by the bill and will be able to continue in accordance with existing datacasting licences.

In short, the measures in the bill will help manage the interim or transition period between the auction and the removal of the digital dividend spectrum from the broadcasting services bands. Once the digital dividend spectrum has been removed from the broadcasting services band, datacasting regulation will not apply to any services using this spectrum. The spectrum will be removed once it has been cleared of digital television services by the restack, which is expected to be completed by 31 December 2014. Failure to pass the bill during the autumn 2013 sittings would mean that bidders in the April 2013 digital dividend auction would not have regulatory certainty or confidence about the rules that will apply to their use of that spectrum prior to it being removed from the broadcasting services band. It is plain and obvious that were that to occur the value that the government and therefore the taxpayers of Australia could realise from the auctioning of this spectrum would be severely diminished.

In conclusion, this is an important process in enabling us to manage the digitalisation and the restacking and therefore the re-auction of valuable spectrum to free it up and make it available for other purposes. We know that the use of wireless and mobile telephony services and wireless broadband are key economic drivers for the future of this country. When put hand in hand with the rollout of the National Broadband Network, this shows once again that this government is doing what it can to ensure that we have the essential infrastructure in place to drive the economic developments of a future economy. I commend the legislation to the House.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I commend the member for Throsby for his contribution. I rise to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Dividend) Bill 2013. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the Radiocommunications Act 1992. It is not exactly the most exciting piece of legislation ever to come through the 43rd parliament, perhaps, but it is significant for some. I always like to make these speeches on legislation understandable for the man on the Clapham omnibus, or the common people. When we look at what we are proposing tonight, it is not particularly controversial. But it does need to be unpacked.

Looking at our cars is a good starting point. Cars have changed. Not that long ago, they had AM radios. Then they had FM radios. Now many new cars have digital radios. Digital radios offer greater information. You can have the name of the song, a little bit of information about it and a bit of news flashing through as well. That is a pretty good progression: from AM to FM to digital. There is now more information, better choice and more understanding. That is indicative of this digital revolution and the digital age that we live in. Obviously, the legislation before us is a result of that production. Basically, these amendments are to facilitate possible commencement of telecommunication services in the spectrum. By switching from the old analogue network to the digital age there will be opportunities in that spectrum—that bit of the wavelength—to benefit other companies, particularly telecommunications companies.

I was drawn to this picture—I apologise for using a prop—which came up on my Facebook. It is a picture of the two photographs taken in St Peter's Square at the announcement of a new pope. I am sorry that people cannot see it but it is easy enough to find on Facebook. It is a photograph from the same viewpoint in 2007, when Cardinal Ratzinger became pope and another taken this year of Pope Francis. Whilst you cannot see it clearly in this photograph, anyone who searches would see—I have shared this photograph on my Facebook page—the photograph in 2013 of the same event. Between 2007 and 2013 not a lot has happened for many people, but the 2013 photograph is just a sea of iPads and digital phones taking photos of Pope Francis coming out to address the crowd.

That photograph encapsulates what we are about tonight: the change from AM to FM to the digital age. That then creates spectrum that is available to telecommunications companies. Why is spectrum valuable? It is valuable because the progression from 3G to the next generation—4G—means that people are hungry for information. And that is what is happening here. That spectrum is able to be sold by the government to the highest bidders—we are calling it the 'digital dividend'—which is a good thing to do, because people are hungry for information.

Obviously, because of the time lines we have set out, this spectrum is still part of the broadcasting services bands. So the legislation before the House is about dealing with this. It makes changes to the datacasting regulations under schedule 6 to the Broadcasting Services Act by introducing the concept of designated datacasting services.

A designated datacasting service will be defined under the legislation as one provided by (1) a commercial television broadcasting service; (2) a commercial radio broadcasting service; or (3) a national broadcaster such as the ABC or SBS. That is the background to the legislation that is before the chamber tonight. There is increasing demand and the digital age is increasingly complicated. There was not a lot of Facebook two popes ago; now we have the second pope to be on twitter. And things will change.

My children—one four-year-old and one seven-year-old—are much more adept at iPads than I am. They can use my wife's iPhone. They are skilled at using and accessing information—more skilled than me, and I still have more degrees than them put together! They are obviously going to be children of the digital age. As I said, it is amazing to see, in that picture, the progression in that short time—from one pope to the next—and to see how the world has embraced the digital age.

That is a problem for some media providers because, as we move from newspapers to iPads and iPhones and the like, people are less likely to buy paper newspapers. They still want trusted, valuable information so there will always be a role for the press gallery. There will always be a role for reliable information, but unfortunately for some of the media proprietors there has been a collapse in income streams. The rivers of gold that they talked about in terms of classified advertising in the seventies and eighties have dried up, because the transfer from paper to digital means a collapse in income streams. I think the rule of thumb used by media proprietors is that for every dollar that they received from an ad in the weekend newspaper they are now receiving 10c for an ad on-line. That is a 90 per cent cut in income.

You can see the effect of that up on level 2 of the Senate wing—if I can mention that place—where the fourth estate reside. You can now send a bowling ball down the aisles and not hit a reporter or a journalist. The reality is that there has been downsizing and downsizing and downsizing—not just in Canberra but across Australia—as media organisations have rationalised as they have fragmented in the digital age. I always say that no-one under 25 has bought a newspaper for five years. They still read information provided by journalists and the like but they are not tracking it down in paper form.

The digital age does have some challenges. Obviously, it has some fantastic opportunities, which is why the Gillard Labor government has been so enthusiastic about the roll-out of the NBN: it sits perfectly with our agenda of providing opportunity via education and facilitating those economic advantages via the NBN. They sit perfectly together. And throw into that the fact that we have a policy of engaging with Asia, because that is where the opportunities will be.

We cannot compete with Asia on labour costs unless we have a prime minister who is committed to policies like Work Choices. That is a possibility on 14 September, but hopefully Australia will realise that you do not make the nation smarter by cutting wages. That is not the way forward. I know there are a couple of Work Choices warriors opposite, but hopefully their voices will be drowned out by that commonsense approach which is: do it the smarter way; do it the more intelligent way; do it the cleverer way; embrace the digital age; embrace the NBN; and look at the higher skills, higher services approach.

This legislation is obviously to facilitate the possible initiation of telecommunications services which, as I said, we have identified as the 'digital dividend' within the broadcasting services band. Let us look at some of the opportunities that are there in terms of the digital economy and what the Gillard Labor government has done.

As part of the 2011-12 budget, the government provided the community broadcasting sector with an additional $12.5 million over four years, an increase of 25 per cent. For digital community radio, the government provided $13.5 million over four years, from 2009-10 to 2012-13, to establish and provide digital radio services. The government has also committed to providing $2.2 million in annual ongoing funding to the sector.

The National Digital Economy Strategy sets out a vision for Australia to realise the benefits of the National Broadband Network and position Australia as a leading digital economy by 2020—a smarter approach to engaging with our region. There is the Digital Hubs program to help communities gain the skills needed to maximise the benefits provided by the National Broadband Network— (Time expired)

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 34. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.