Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I am shocked and horrified at the way Senator Conroy has so blatantly misrepresented the coalition’s position on this matter. Senator Conroy has the audacity to suggest that our amendments effectively remove the deadline in relation to digital TV. Well, of course, they do not. The deadline has been set and it is not a feature of this particular amending bill at all. We accept the deadline of the end of 2013. This bill does not have any effect on that. The bill itself does not set any deadlines. What the bill does is give the minister the remarkable and extraordinary power to decide for himself when the analog signal will be switched off. That is what we have to remember. This bill gives the minister a remarkable power over the daily lives of millions of Australians who, as we know, rely on free-to-air television for their entertainment to the extent of hours every day. It is particularly important in rural and regional Australia, where there is less access to metropolitan entertainment. Their TV signal is vital to their daily lives. The minister, through this bill, is seeking to acquire the extraordinary power to decide for himself when he will switch off their analog TV signal. The bill gives him the power to do that regardless of the state of take-up of digital TV equipment and regardless of the state of the infrastructure required to send the TV signal to their homes.

The Senate is being asked by the government to take the government entirely on trust on this matter. We do not think that is at all appropriate. Remember, and I say this pointedly to the Greens, this bill does not set the particular time lines. The minister has circulated the indicative timetable for the switch-off between 2010 and 2013 that he might or might not follow. Who knows? That is entirely a matter for the minister because the bill does not require that in any way. The minister could switch us all off whenever he likes under the amendments that we are being asked to agree to today. That is why we believe the Senate should impose on the minister some criteria that he should publicly be held accountable to the switch-off.

Remember, these amendments came to us primarily from the people with the greatest vested interest in moving to digital, and that is the commercial and national broadcasters. They do want to move to digital; they do not want to keep paying for simulcast. They do want to end the analog signal, but they do not want their viewers watching a blank screen. They want to make sure that their viewers can, in fact, watch television when the minister decides of his own volition that he is going to switch off the analog signal. What we have done is not go quite as far as the broadcasters would want in relation to these amendments. We have compromised. We have modified our amendments. But we do think the broadcasters are right in that the minister should have imposed on him some criteria that will guide him in this remarkable power to be granted to him by this bill to just decide, whenever he likes, to switch off a particular area.

I am a bit surprised by the Greens not wanting to support these amendments. I did not quite understand the logic or the consistency in relation to the Greens comments. I am surprised because the tone of the Greens comments is that they actually do not care if, in fact, the minister switches off the analog signal somewhere and thousands upon thousands of viewers are no longer able to watch television—and that could well be a consequence of this.

Senator Ludlam expressed surprise at 5G(3)(a) that we should have the objective that the transmission of broadcasting services should achieve the same level of coverage and potential reception quality after digital television switch-over as was achieved by the transmission of those services in the area prior to switch-over. I would have thought that was absolute common sense. I would have thought any government should have that as a fundamental precondition to switch-over, and that is certainly what the broadcasters are saying to us. They have the strongest interest in switching over but they are also saying—and we entirely agree—that this parliament should be setting as its fundamental floor plan that, if you currently get TV signal analog, you should be able to get a digital signal when the switch-over occurs.

I am amazed that the Greens do not support that proposition and that they are apparently happy if thousands upon thousands of people are watching a blank screen after the minister switches off their analog signal. But, quite inconsistently, the Greens then say, ‘Oh, but we are concerned that in 5G(6)(c) there is a mechanism by which, if the broadcasters, the government and the Digital Switchover Taskforce believe that there are significant reasons why, even if the criteria are not met, a switch-over can occur.’ We have put that in, and we have done that again in consultation with the broadcasters. We think that is sensible. But it seems very odd to criticise that, while at the same time criticising there being any criteria whatsoever in the first place. How can you possibly criticise a safety valve in relation to the criteria if you do not agree with the criteria in the first place? I do not really understand the Greens comments on our amendments, and I do not understand why they are not supporting them. I express my great disappointment with that.

I again remind the Greens that this minister is seeking a remarkable and extraordinary power to decide for himself when switch-over will occur. As I said, the timetable that has been distributed is entirely the minister’s plaything. He can decide whenever he likes. He does not have to stick to that timetable. This bill does not require him to stick to that timetable. The minister has entire freedom under this bill to switch over any area whenever he likes. It is a remarkable power, and he has no criteria to be held account to. We do not think that is good enough. We are not prepared to take the government on trust, and I would urge the Greens and others—the crossbench senators—to support our amendments.