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

I will work on the basis that you did say you were following this debate. For seven years, without a firm date and with nothing more than good intentions, nothing happened. For seven years, Australia fell behind the rest of the world, and we are now a bit of an international laughing stock because we have fallen so far behind other countries. There is a very simple reason for that: because of the games being played over seven or eight years by the commercial networks. The commercial networks originally did not want this to succeed at all. They sat on their hands. They did not even deliver an electronic program guide on their digital channels until just before the last election because they did not want this to succeed.

This government came in just over 12 months ago and said that enough was enough. We said to them, ‘We are setting a deadline and we are moving towards it. What are you going to do to help us achieve this?’ Since that point they have taken the bit between their teeth and worked hard. They have committed resources—both in direct monetary sums and in the advertising campaign that you have seen launched just recently—and they are working hard. However, they have also gone back to their old games, despite saying that they are comfortable with the timetable, and despite being involved in every single consultation. If you would like, Senator Xenophon, I can get you the list—and it is lengthy—of all of the organisations involved in the consultation process. There were many meetings, and they agreed on a timetable. But despite Free TV sitting in the room and saying, ‘Hey, we agree,’ they have then gone back to their old games. You might even have seen some commentary in the newspapers last week where one TV executive said, in effect, that they were not going to cooperate with this unless they received a guarantee that the fourth TV network was off the table. That is what this is about.

So they have gone around with some very benign looking amendments that, if passed, would effectively sabotage all the good work of the last 12 months, and undermine the confidence in the market of people to buy TVs. As soon as you send the signal that it is flexible and that it is not really a deadline, people will slow down their purchase of TVs and set-top boxes, and the content provision, which is key to driving the uptake, will be able to be deferred again. You only have to read the comments of those executives in the newspapers last week where they said, ‘If we do not get what we want on this, we are not going to cooperate.’ This amendment, while not the exact position that has been advocated by Free TV, delivers the same substantive outcome as is being sought by Free TV. They want to drag their feet, increase the pressure and ensure that there is no firm switch-off date—notwithstanding that they were in the room and agreed to the timetable. They have agreed to the regional rollout but, at the same time, they are asking for more concessions from the government. They want more commitments on future spectrum allocations and on contributions towards future costs. Unless they get them, they will keep trying to play with the process. I would only urge you to understand that this negotiating tactic is being used to slow down and undermine the process to ensure that we do not make the progress that is needed. But as soon as you pull away the strut which is, ‘Hey, you have to do this,’ you will slow down the uptake of purchases and the uptake of content being rolled out—because they will have won the first stage.

I urge you to consider this in the macro. This amendment seems very benign and very reasonable, but there has been extensive consultation. I can get you a full briefing on all of the consultation, the individuals involved and the agreement around the table to go down this path. Yet, notwithstanding reaching that agreement, one of the stakeholders has then gone out and sought to undermine it because they have a very significant economic incentive to do so.