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

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 5665-revised together:

(1)    Schedule 2, page 4 (after line 13), after item 3, insert:

3A Clause 2 of Schedule 4

Insert:

minimum analog switch-off readiness criteria has the meaning given by clause 5G.

(2)    Schedule 2, page 5 (after line 32), after item 4, insert:

4A At the end of Part 1 of Schedule 4

Add:

5G Minimum analog switch-off readiness criteria

        (1)    The Minister must, by legislative instrument, determine minimum analog switch-off readiness criteria.

        (2)    The Minister must make a determination under subclause (1) within 6 months of the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent.

        (3)    A determination made under subclause (1) must include criteria against which the television broadcasting services in each local market area can be objectively assessed, to determine whether the following objectives can be met:

             (a)    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 service in that area prior to switch-over; and

             (b)    that all households which received free to air television coverage in analog mode should be able to receive the same level of coverage after switch-over; and

             (c)    that adequate measures have been taken to assist household readiness for analog switch-off, as indicated by household take-up of equipment capable of receiving digital terrestrial free to air television transmission and awareness of analog switch-off and of methods to convert to digital.

Assessment against readiness criteria

        (4)    In relation to each local market area determined under paragraph 5F(1)(a), the Minister must cause a report to be prepared assessing the local market area against the minimum analog switch-off readiness criteria.

        (5)    The Minister must cause any report prepared in accordance with subsection (4) to be published on the department’s website not less than 6 months prior to the time determined for that area to become a digital-only local market area.

        (6)    If a report prepared under subsection (4) discloses that the readiness criteria have not been met for a local market area, the Minister must cause to be published, within 30 days of the publication of the report, a plan to ensure that:

             (a)    the criteria are met by the time determined for that area to become a digital-only local market area; or

             (b)    the time determined for that area to become a digital-only local market area is extended until the criteria are met; or

             (c)    each of the national television broadcasters and commercial television broadcasting licensees for the local market area and the Digital Switchover Taskforce notify the Minister in writing of their agreement that the time should not be varied.

(3)    Schedule 2, page 5 (after line 32), after item 4, insert:

4B At the end of Part 1 of Schedule 4

5H Reports on transmission blackspots

                 On the first sitting day of each House of the Parliament after each 1 January, 1 April, 1 July and 1 October after the making of the first determination under subclause 5G(1), until 1 September 2014, the Minister must cause a report to be laid before each House of the Parliament containing the following information:

             (a)    action taken to identify and rectify digital transmission infrastructure that would otherwise prevent the transmission of free to air television broadcasting services in SDTV digital mode in any area achieving the same level of coverage and potential reception quality as was achieved by the transmission of those services in analog mode; and

             (b)    the local market areas and regions where digital transmission issues have been identified and how many households will be affected.

We heard from the minister in his second reading speech an outline of the problem that we want to address. The trouble with the government’s approach to this—and remember that the view about the need to switch over is essentially bipartisan—is that it is very much one of: ‘We know best. Just take us on trust and she’ll be right.’ You have to remember that the government has now announced that it is going to be regional and rural Australia that are going to be switched off first, leaving metropolitan Australia for last. We understand that; we are not objecting to that. We are saying to the people of regional and rural Australia that, in 12 months time, they face the loss of their analog signal, but the government is saying to them: ‘We’re going to switch it off regardless. We’re not going to pay any attention in fact and explicitly to whether or not everybody in an area has the capacity internally to receive a digital signal or indeed whether there are transmissions difficulties. Just trust us; take it. We’re just going to switch it off.’

We are not prepared to support that sort of approach. This is all about the viewers. What is this about? It is about enabling viewers to get better TV. I have Fox iQ2—no doubt the minister has as well. It is fantastic; I agree with you—digital TV is brilliant.

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

Senator Conroy interjecting—

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

Well, I encourage you to do so, Minister. It is fantastic. But it is viewers that we are concerned about here. It is about their capacity to enjoy better television. What is the point of saying, ‘We’re just going to switch off regardless,’ if 25 or 30 per cent of the viewers in a particular area do not have the equivalent and are not able to receive a signal?

In some ways we are trying to save the government from itself. This will be a calamity for the minister and for his government if there is an unsuccessful switch-over in a particular area. I can assure the minister that in regional South Australia, which is also targeted for switch-off before the next federal election, if those in some 25 per cent of a particular area are not ready to receive digital TV, this will be a calamity for the Labor Party which we will exploit to the hilt, so I give notice of that. So in some ways we are trying to save the government from itself.

We do think that it is perfectly reasonable, proper and appropriate, in the interests of public accountability, for the government to indicate that—and to be so required by virtue of our amendments—it will establish the preconditions for switch-over in a particular area. We are not being as prescriptive as Free TV; we do accept that, while we support the sentiment of Free TV’s approach, we are not seeking to be as prescriptive as they were. We are really saying to the government that it ought to have, as a matter of course, some criteria which it believes need to be observed before a switch-over actually takes place, that these criteria should be published and that measures should be put in place to ensure that any particular region meets those criteria. Where it is clear that they do not, the government should indicate how it is going to get to the level of readiness that we believe the government should set in place.

In many ways these amendments are about requiring the government to take the actions that are necessary to ensure that a region is ready. If the government has, by virtue of these amendments, a requirement to meet certain readiness criteria, then the government will have the incentive to make sure that a region is ready. Otherwise there is no incentive whatsoever for the government to do so and the government can just carte blanche turn off an area without anyone having recourse except perhaps by the political consequences. I wonder whether those opposite are even concerned about that. We have noted that most of the region has been put off into the next term, when, as I pray, we will be in government in any event. But we think there should be an incentive in this bill for the government to take the requisite action.

As I said in my speech in the second reading debate, it will be incumbent on the government to provide in the next budget funding to ensure that disadvantaged Australians have financial assistance to acquire the relevant equipment and that there is financial provision for self-help transmitters, particularly in regional and rural Australia, which the government is targeting as the first area to lose the analog signal. So we believe these amendments will help to provide the incentives that the government should have itself to ensure that regions are ready. Otherwise, in the absence of our amendments, so in the absence of support for these amendments, there is no incentive whatsoever for the government. It can just simply do the switch-off.

As I have said, the bottom line here is that we are being expected to take the government on trust in relation to this switch-over. We are not prepared to do that. We do not think that is appropriate. We think that the consumers, the viewers, of TV signals are what matter here, not just a headlong rush to switch over regardless. We do accept the rationale that you do have to have a timetable, as it is human nature—and I accept this—that unless there is a deadline people will be reluctant. But these amendments put the onus on the government, on the regional and rural broadcasters, on the commercial broadcasters and on the national broadcasters to ensure that they maximise the take-up. I was with the minister at the launch, and I think the broadcasters are putting a huge effort in and I commend them for it. But it is also incumbent on the government to encourage the take-up. We believe that our amendments will ensure that the government has the requisite incentives to maximise the take-up and to make sure regions are ready, because certainly I for one—and I speak for the opposition—do not want to see a switch-over occur with thousands upon thousands of Australians completely losing their television reception. There is a very real risk of that happening if our amendments are not passed.

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

There are no specific criteria in the bill for which the minister must have regard when varying a switch-over date in a particular market. This is consistent with the existing legislative framework as currently the government has no specific criteria to address before making regulations to extend the simulcast period. The success of the switch-over program is dependent on two factors. I actually agree with almost all that Senator Minchin had to say on the importance of government stepping up to the plate. The government has a very comprehensive program and that will be starting to be rolled out. You will get a demonstration of it in Mildura, and you will see exactly what the government is prepared to put on the table to ensure that nobody ends up without a TV signal.

I know that Senator Minchin is kindly offering the olive branch to ensure that we do not plunge ourselves into an electoral defeat. That is very kind of Senator Minchin. I am not sure I can take him too seriously though; I am really not. That means I do have to question the motive behind the amendments, because I am sure it really is not to save us from ourselves. This government is committed to ensuring that no-one’s TV goes blank. That is why we will have a comprehensive information package and advertising campaign and a support package. All of these things will flow from the parliament passing this bill. But this is where I would disagree with Senator Minchin, although I should not say ‘disagree’ because he does concede the point—human nature is human nature. If we take away the incentive for other stakeholders to step up to the plate—and let us be clear that they have demonstrated over seven to eight years that they have been unwilling to step up to the plate—then no amount of government advertising by itself and no government program by itself will succeed in ensuring that the switch-over is a smooth transition. As I said, these amendments take us back to the future. They take us back to where we were under the previous government: all good intentions—and, as Senator Minchin has indicated, this is basically bipartisan—but no action, no commitment and no drive.

We have the Freeview box being launched because this government set a deadline. We have a commitment from the stakeholders to deliver on switch-over because this government set an unequivocal deadline. To now take the backward steps of removing that deadline—which is what this would do—would truly return us to providing an incentive for slothfulness.

Senator Minchin raised a very important point—as did Senator Macdonald—about black spots. ACMA is conducting an extensive analysis of black spots across the country. To put it simply: with analog TV, as the signal gets weaker, you get the ‘snowy effect’. Senator Williams, I am sure you are familiar with what I am talking about. On the other hand, with digital TV you get what they call the ‘cliff effect’—you either get it or you do not. It really is like that. So there are very legitimate issues that need to be pursued.

This bill is a key part of driving everybody to be honest about wanting to get those problems solved. If the amendments are passed, it will significantly reduce the incentive for key stakeholders to participate in identifying the black spots to ensure that people in rural and regional Australia do not actually get cut off. While I believe that Senator Minchin is well intentioned in seeking to move these amendments, they will not actually achieve what he is setting out to achieve because they essentially return the incentive to those who have not been willing to step up to the plate in the past. We will not be supporting the amendments.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to 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.

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to 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.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a question for the minister. Looking back over the years at mobile telephone signals, the analog system was very good. The previous Labor government shut it down and gave us all the kind words about how there would be a very strong signal from the GSM digital system for country, rural and regional Australia. Of course, the new system was absolutely hopeless. Thank goodness the coalition was elected to government in 1996 and brought in the CDMA signal. That was far better.

Minister, going on the previous history of shutting down analog and bringing in a new system, can you give me a 100 per cent guarantee that, with this new system, no regional or rural area will be worse off as far as signal strength and television reception go? Can you give us a 100 per cent guarantee that you will see that those are in place before you shut down the analog system, which is a most effective system in rural communities?

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

I will respond briefly to Senator Williams’ comments: that is the government’s objective; that is what we are working towards. I think Senator Birmingham, who has followed these issues for quite a period of time, acknowledged that Mr Andy Townend, who designed the program in the UK, is now designing ours. If you look at the success of the program so far in the UK, you will see that, if we follow through on all the things that we are talking about, we will deliver that outcome. That is what we intend to deliver. I cannot be clearer than that. That is what we intend to deliver.

Senator Williams, if the opposition amendments remove one of the key struts, which is that we cannot deliver this by ourselves—more than their cooperation, we need the active support and desire of the free-to-air networks to come on board—you will actively undermine the very thing you say that you are concerned about. Senator Minchin correctly identified that human nature is human nature. If you give people an economic incentive to go slow, they will go slow. What these amendments do is give them the incentive to go slow. You will be responsible for undermining the programs that we are going to continue to roll out, to deliver and to guarantee. You will be undermining that guarantee if you succeed with your amendments.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last time I looked, Minister, the UK was a considerably smaller country than Australia. This is my exact point. I am not playing politics; I am being deadly serious. I saw what happened with the analog phone system when rural and regional areas were done over big time. If there had not been a change of government, those areas would still have been on a GSM network—a network where, if you were not standing under a tower, you would not have a signal. On behalf of those people out at White Cliffs, Wilcannia and the back of Bourke that just happen to grow the nation’s food to keep us fed and alive—if they are not putting it down for trees—I am seriously asking whether you can provide a guarantee. Surely you cannot blame the global financial crisis for what we are doing regarding broadband in this system here. Can you give these people a guarantee that before those analog systems are turned off, they will have an equivalent service on their televisions?

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

That is exactly what we are intending, Senator Williams. I know that you are genuinely concerned, but your amendments will actually undermine the achievement of that guarantee. That is what will happen because you will actually withdraw key incentives to go forward. And just as it has been for the last seven years, where regional and rural Australia has not been getting all the services that the city has been getting, you will lock people into that for longer.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have followed this debate and I would be grateful to get comments from the minister on this, but my understanding of the opposition’s amendments is that they do require a level of consultation: it will be through a disallowable instrument. I know that there is a concern, in regional South Australia in particular, that people could be prejudiced with respect to this, and I note Senator Conroy’s comments that the switch-over must occur and that it must occur as quickly as possible. My understanding of the opposition’s amendments, however, is that their principal purpose is to require readiness criteria to be the subject of consultation with communities, and that it would still be a disallowable instrument. If the criteria are reasonable, I cannot see what harm it would do. So I am inclined to support the amendments, but I am more than happy to listen to the minister’s argument.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to 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.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for his answer. I understand that Free TV’s position was, ‘Don’t do the switch until you get to a 95 per cent threshold’, or something like that. That is clearly absurd. I agree with the minister that that would clearly sabotage the process, and I understand that. But there are two parts to this amendment. The first part relates to the minimum analog readiness criteria. Does not the minister have a fair degree of room in the context of those criteria if the criteria include a process of consultation, particularly in remote or regional areas, so that you still have that fair degree of flexibility? The second part, which I have strong views on, is the reports of transmission black spots. That does not impede what the minister is concerned about, because if there are points of transmission black spots, then that is a degree of accountability in terms of what is happening. Perhaps that is a question for the shadow minister, Senator Minchin. You say that it looks benign; if it looks benign I usually work on the premise that it is benign—

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

It’s a cunning plan!

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

‘It’s a cunning plan!’ I do not know if that is a compliment of Senator Minchin or not.

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

It’s a slur!

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

He is a very cunning person!

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have heard Senator Ludlam’s comments and I note the enormous amount of work he has done in this area. If it is not benign, how is it particularly sinister, and does the government concede that reports on transmission black spots would be a genuinely helpful mechanism to keep the industry on its toes?

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

You have identified two different aspects of it. The first aspect is the reporting plan. As I said, that is very cunning; it looks very benign. The issue, as I described it previously, is that it actually will undermine the rollout, which I do not think is the intent, to be fair. I think that it seems very benign. The second issue is the black spots, and that is a very legitimate point. As I have indicated in a couple of the comments that I have made already, we do have a program that ACMA is conducting. I am more than happy to provide a full briefing of where that is at to anybody who is interested in it, because this is an absolutely legitimate issue.

I again indicate to you the complexities of this challenge. The transmission black spots can only be identified with the cooperation of the free-to-air networks. As you can imagine, if you remove the incentive, as the first part of this seeks to do, you again undermine the capacity for everyone to be straight up. We are more than happy to provide full briefings and ongoing information about how the black spots are being identified and what we are doing to work with the free-to-air networks to solve them. I have no problem at all with doing that, and I am sure that we could find a mechanism without having to go down this particular path to achieve the objective that you are concerned about. I am happy to engage in a conversation with you, and I offer that to Senator Minchin as well. This is a genuine issue where there are genuine technical complexities. But, again, those complexities will be made worse if these amendments are passed because what they are about is giving leverage in a debate. Let me be clear about this: there is a great desire for the expenditure of money to solve some of these problems, and it would be fair to say that some stakeholders would prefer not to spend that money themselves. They would prefer you and I to authorise the Senate and the parliament to spend that money. So there is a significant undercurrent to try to press the black spots issue so as to make taxpayers cough more money up than they otherwise would—money that should rightfully be paid by the individual stakeholders. What they are seeking to do with a benign amendment like this is create controversy so as to put pressure on the government to hand out more money.

Again, you should understand the nature of the complexities here, and I am sure you do—you have been involved in politics for a long time. Any concession on the first part that I have talked about will undermine the effect of the rollout program into the future. I am genuine when I say that. As for the second part, I am more than happy to provide more information on transmission information to you and to sit down and work out how we can provide more information to ensure that we are addressing these issues. As I am sure you would understand, any minister for communications who went to his colleagues and said, ‘Look, I am about to switch off 20 per cent of your television screens in the area that you really care about’ is not going to stay minister for communications for long. As much as Senator Minchin says that he is trying to look after my interests, I have to say that I am not convinced. If your issue is around transmission black spots information, I am more than happy to sit down and work through something that will deliver the information that you are interested in without having to go down this path. That is absolutely critical to the successful delivery of this entire program across the whole country.

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

If I can respond also to Senator Xenophon’s remarks, Senator Xenophon is absolutely right that our third amendment has no consequences whatsoever for the minister’s desired timetable in relation to switch-off. All it is seeking to do is ensure the accountability of the government to the parliament for progress in relation to dealing with transmission infrastructure and black spots. This is a critical issue, particularly in rural and regional areas. Senator Xenophon and I represent the state of South Australia, which is the first area to be targeted by the minister in terms of switch-off. We think it is perfectly appropriate, given the enormous authority which these amendments give to the minister to decide for himself when an area is going to be switched off, that he should have to make quarterly reports to the parliament which, as I say, have no impact on the timetable, on the progress in ensuring the upgrading of digital transmission infrastructure. There are a whole lot of these so-called self-help transmitters around the country that we do need to ensure can meet the requirements. I am surprised the Greens would not be seeking to support amendment (3) for that very reason, that it has no impact on the timetable, it is about accountability of the minister and of the government to the parliament and the people of Australia with respect to the state of infrastructure. As Senator Williams so appropriately said, the enormous difficulties that rural and regional Australians had with respect to mobile telephone reception should remind us that if we want to reassure Australians that the government is taking their interests into account and ensuring that everything possible is being done to ensure that they can continue to receive a television signal once analog is switched off, this sort of information being provided to the parliament is appropriate and proper. I am amazed that the government has any difficulty with this amendment whatsoever.

In relation to the remarks the minister made in responding to Senator Xenophon, he seems to be setting up this straw man of the big, bad, nasty broadcasters. It was a remarkable attack upon Australia’s free TV broadcasters, who I think do a great job providing to Australians probably the best free-to-air television in the Western world. I am surprised by the slur he is casting upon them. To suggest that they do not want this to succeed I think is wrong. They do not want to pay for a simulcast for one day longer than is necessary. Of course they want to end the simulcast period. I think this is a straw man which the minister is setting up. Quite naturally the minister does not want any constraints whatsoever on the enormous power he is to be granted by this bill to decide for himself when a switch-over will occur. I understand. When you get into government you like to be able to act without any constraint from the parliament; I have been there and done that. But I think it is appropriate that the parliament does place some accountability measures on the minister in respect of the very great power that he is asking the parliament to give him in relation to the switch-off of analog. As I say, the broadcasters issue is a straw man. What we are concerned about is what is going to happen to the viewers and we want to make sure that there is not a viewer in this country who, when the minister decides he is going to switch off their analog signal, is looking at a blank screen. That is possible under this bill. We do not think that is good enough. There should be accountability measures and measures set in place with which the minister must comply before he can switch off and potentially render thousands of Australians without any TV signal at all.

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

Senator Minchin let the cat out of the bag then. In government Senator Minchin and his government did not support what he is now advocating. So we should not misunderstand the game that is being played.

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

You said we had not even got to a set of deadlines. That is just wrong. It is a straw man argument.

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

That is not the case at all, Senator Minchin. The act providing for switch-over dates, written by the previous government, does not have readiness criteria. Let us be clear about this. What Senator Minchin is now advocating is not something he advocated in government. Again, we should see the arguments being put forward for what they are. It is cheap political point-scoring, playing both sides of the street—not something unusual for this opposition. But we should understand that Senator Minchin is not genuine, because, if he was genuine, he would have done it when he was in government, and he did not.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am grateful to both the minister and the shadow minister for their contributions and putting their positions forward. I can summarise my position as this. I will support the opposition’s amendments but I want to make it clear that I do so because I do have some concerns in relation to the matters that the opposition is seeking to deal with with respect to the analog switch-off readiness criteria in terms of the level of consultation and the processes involved. I note the minister’s concerns as to the impact this will have on the rollout.

The second substantive amendment relates to the reports of transmission black spots. I note Senator Conroy says that could be used as an excuse for the government to be touched up by the industry to get some more money, but I still think it is important that the whole issue of transmission black spots is out there, is reportable and is subject to public commentary and debate. The flip side of that, if I can put this to the minister, is that if there are significant black spots it raises questions as to what the television networks and channels are doing, and they should be held to account. I see it as a glass half full rather than a glass half empty amendment. So I do support these amendments. I note the government’s position. I more strongly support the transmission black spots amendment but I would like to have an opportunity to have discussions with the minister and the shadow minister, and indeed my colleagues in the Greens and Senator Fielding, in relation to the first amendment. But for the purpose of moving on with the debate I support these amendments.

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

The Greens restate our opposition to the first two of the opposition substantive amendments but indicate that the Greens would be happy to support the third amendment relating to black spot coverage should they be moved separately. Essentially this is an improvement in the way we would be able to interpret information and get a government response to the way that the data on the digital tracker is being interpreted by the government. However, we are not really persuaded by the arguments that Senator Minchin is putting around incentivisation. So we will be maintaining our opposition to the first two of the opposition’s amendments but we would support the third if it is moved separately.

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

I appreciate the Greens’ indication of their support for the third amendment, while expressing my disappointment that they do not support (1) and (2). While the committee gave me leave to consider all our amendments together, I seek leave to have the consideration of the amendments split, so that we deal with (1) and (2) together and (3) separately.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding is that you do not need to seek leave. The question now is that opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 5665-revised be agreed to.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I now move to amendment (3) on sheet 5665-revised, moved by the opposition. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.