Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

The incorporated speech read as follows—

I rise to speak on the Communications Legislation Amendment (Information and Datacasting) Bill 2007, which brings with it amendments to: the Radiocommunications Act; the Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Act 1998; and the Australian Communications and Media Authority Act 2005.

This Bill seeks to:

1.

Amend the Radiocommunications Act 1992 to give the Australian Communications and Media Authority the power to vary the frequencies on which datacasting transmitter licences operate;

2.

Amend the Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Act 1998 to give effect to the Government’s decision that a Channel B licensee is not subject to an annual revenue based fee; and

3.

Amend the Australian Communications and Media Authority Act 2005 to authorise the disclosure of certain information by ACMA to third parties with whom it has an on going and co-operative role.

On the face of it, the aims of this Bill appear straight forward.

However, upon closer scrutiny, the amendments have implications that simply do not appear to have been adequately considered by the Government.

As was evident at the ECITA Inquiry into this Bill, the Bill fails to address 2 key issues:

1.

privacy and confidentiality concerns;

2.

consultation of stakeholders in relation to spectrum variation.

I will address each of these important issues shortly.

Additionally, a further cause for concern was the manner in which this Bill was rushed through the inquiry process and into Parliament.

These issues serve to highlight a Government with scant regard to democratic process.

The ECITA Inquiry

The Australian public should be concerned, as is Labor, at the way in which the Howard Government pushes legislation through parliament.

This Bill was no different.

The public has to wonder, as Labor does, what is to be gained by the Government’s apparent rush to notch up another Bill on the board.

The Howard Government’s manner of conducting business Illustrates a deep-seated contempt for parliamentary process and serves to denigrate democracy in this country.

On 20 June 2007, the Senate referred the Bill to the ECITA Committee for inquiry and report by 30 July 2007.

While submissions were invited to be received by no later than Friday, 13 July 2007, the first submission was not received until 16 July 2007.

Subsequent submissions were received and, on 3 August 2007, the date for the inquiry was confirmed as 7 August 2007, just 4 days later.

On 6 August 2007, it became clear that one Labor Senator had not been provided with a copy of a recent submission.

On 7 August 2007, the Inquiry was held.

On 8 August, not 24 hours after the inquiry, the Committee issued its report.

One that same day, only some hours after receipt of the Committee’s report, the Committee Secretariat informed Labor that it required its Minority Report forthwith.

This behaviour again serves to show the Government’s lack of regard for the inquiry process.

The inquiry process is intended to ensure that stakeholders are heard and that legislation can be considered and, if need be, improved.

The non-provision of a submission to a Committee member is inexcusable—as is the request for a Minority Report to be provided forthwith.

The acts outlined above can only be described as the acts of an arrogant Government.

The Howard Government appears to have simply forgotten the tenets of good governance.

Apparently, the Government:

• does not consider it necessary to consult on Bills;
• pushes Bills through Parliament; and
• does not take the time to consider the ramifications of its legislation, as outlined by key industry stakeholders.

Labor, however, does not—and will not—act today without regard for tomorrow.

Labor recognises that this Bill has the capacity to impact significantly on the world of broadcasting in the years to come.

Accordingly, it is vital that this Bill—and every bill that comes before parliament—is given due consideration.

The first area of concern for Labor with this Bill is the privacy and confidentiality implications of the information sharing provisions.

Information Sharing Provisions

In its role as broadcasting administrator and regulator, ACMA is often the recipient of information that is, or could be, relevant to other administrative or regulatory entities.

The Bill provides for ACMA to disclose certain information to the Minister, certain public servants and government agencies such as the AFP and ASIO and regulatory bodies such as the ACCC, the TIO and ASIC.

The Bill also provides for disclosure of information by ACMA to an authority of a foreign country responsible for regulating matters relating to communications or media.

Labor appreciates that there are many instances where the disclosure of information gathered by ACMA to third parties would be, or could be, mutually beneficial.

However, there is concern that these same provisions allow ACMA to provide persons and agencies—including overseas media authorities—with personal and/or confidential information.

There is no provision in the Bill to:

• prevent disclosure of personal or confidential information to a nominated third party; or
• prevent use of an individual’s personal or confidential information by a nominated third party who has received such information.

Nor does the Bill provide that, where information is shared by ACMA with a nominated third pally, that the entity about whom the information relates is:

• consulted;
• informed; or
• has an opportunity to apply, for example, for an exemption from the disclosure.

Clearly, these provisions do not adequately address privacy concerns or provide adequate protection of confidential information.

Labor is concerned that the Bill does not adequately strike the balance between the public interest and the protection of privacy and confidentiality.

Datacasting Provisions

As noted above, the datacasting provisions of the Bill allow ACMA to vary the frequencies on which datacasting transmitter licences operate.

The Explanatory Memorandum states that this will enable the Government:

• to address technical issues, such as interference with existing services; and
• to optimise spectrum for the provision of mobile television services.

While on the face of it there is utility in these provisions, one queries whether the need for them would be lessened if comprehensive spectrum planning was undertaken by the Government.

Labor has concerns that:

• frequency variation is a significant undertaking; and
• the Bill does not provide for adequate consultation with stakeholders prior to any such variance.

The Government has made it clear that it intends to auction off Channel A and B to the highest bidder.

ACMA has identified the potential for Channel B to interfere with analogue television reception in Sydney, the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast.

Accordingly, Labor and industry stakeholders consider that the datacasting provisions of the Bill may be utilised sooner rather than later and with far reaching effect.

Clearly, the variance of a licence holder’s frequency has the potential for enormous ramifications, such as:

• the loss of television services;
• interference and disruption to viewers; and/ or
• interference and disruption to broadcasters.

It is for this reason that consultation with licence holders is imperative to address both the interference and planning challenges associated with Channel B and to ensure that there Is minimal interruption in services.

Conclusion

This is why Labor seeks to move a second reading amendment.

<SC to move second reading amendment—Attachment A>

The Second Reading Amendment:

• acknowledges the Bill’s shortcomings in relation to the failure of the Bill to adequately address privacy and confidentiality concerns; and
• and seeks to ensure that the Government undertakes adequate spectrum planning, enters into consultation with stakeholders and comprehensively assesses of the impact of any variation in frequency.