Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

The Greens will not be supporting the amendments moved by Senator Minchin. We agree with Senator Minchin’s comments about the incentives as they would align for a minister not wanting to cut off a significant fraction of an audience in an election year, but I believe that the economic incentives would align similarly given that, with a hard deadline approaching, no broadcaster would want to be in the business of cutting off a significant fraction of its audience.

I will now go through some of the clauses proposed in the opposition’s amendments. On my reading, clause 5G(3)(a) and 5G(3)(b) essentially connote that 100 per cent of homes that have analog reception of all channels would now need to have digital reception of all channels. I think the experience overseas shows that a figure below 100 per cent is going to need to be struck. If the bar is set as high as 100 per cent then it is going to ensure that the switch-over will never happen. Clause 5G(6)(b) would essentially require a certain amount of redrafting of the bill. Clause 6A(10) would need to mirror that amendment; otherwise, a delay of greater than three months to a single local market area may not fit into the relevant simulcast period for the relevant licence area. So that is an area we would probably need to go back and have a bit of a look at. One of the major concerns for us is clause 5G(6)(c), which essentially says that the public interest matters that are set out in 5G(6)(a) and 5G(6)(b) could be set aside should commercial broadcasters and the Digital Switchover Taskforce so advise the minister. That would give us significant concern. The criteria are currently aimed at the general viewing public, and we would be pretty concerned if you could disregard that on the advice of 60 per cent of the relevant broadcasters on the DST. So we do have concerns about the amendments and we will not be supporting them. We believe that the incentives will line up to the degree that, as the deadline approaches, everyone will be on board, ensuring that no-one is left behind.

In closing, I would like to say to the minister that your support for the community broadcasting sector is clearly on the record from the estimates hearings in October. We had this debate. The department, in its submission to the inquiry, stated a very similar line: ‘We are currently considering all options.’ Essentially you have given us nothing more than we had in October, which was: ‘We are considering these matters. Trust us, everything will be fine.’ What we are really looking for is the pathway. Will it be a single pathway nationally or will it be something that is tuned to the different demands on spectrum and so on in each of the regional areas? These broadcasters essentially get by on the smell of an oily rag and provide an extraordinarily valuable service to the public and also to the industry by way of training, so we think they should not be left behind. You are also dealing with the national broadcasters and the free-TV broadcasters at the same time, so I understand why the community broadcasting sector might wind up 15th or 16th on your list of priorities. But we need to see it prioritised and a clear pathway set so that we can go ahead with confidence.