Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Dividend and Other Measures) Bill 2011. This bill has two main components, one being to effect a reorganisation of digital television channels to realise what is commonly referred to as the 'digital dividend', and the second being to deal with amendments to the regulatory framework which provide free-to-air television via the new VAST satellite service as part of the digital television switchover. The switch to digital-only television will make the present spectrum used for television in the analog space in the frequency ranges between 694 and 820 megahertz available for other uses. Beyond that is a capacity and opportunity to restack the spectrum used in the digital space, further making capacity available.

Spectrum is of course a valuable com­modity, and I expect significant competition for this spectrum including from providers of superfast broadband, which we all know is increasingly the internet platform of choice for many Australians. This will of course provide a windfall of sorts to the government when that spectrum is allocated, auctioned or otherwise disposed of. I wish that I could say I have confidence that when this government receives windfall gains such as from the sale of spectrum it knows how to use the money wisely. However, I can but hope—given its history in pink batts, school halls or other areas—that there is a change of government in place by the time the dividend in financial terms to government from this spectrum reallocation is made available.

To enable this digital dividend, a more efficient organisation of broadcasting services spectrum is required, which will be overseen by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, otherwise known as ACMA, through a process, as I mentioned, known as restacking. This reorganisation requires amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act and Radiocommunications Act, which are presented in this bill. The coalition recognises the need to provide ACMA with the regulatory changes it needs to complete the restacking process effectively. However, as coalition senators outlined in their additional comments to the report of the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Dividend and Other Measures) Bill 2011 inquiry, the coalition does have some concerns in relation to the realignment of the broadcast licence areas. Before I move onto those concerns, I place on record my thanks to the members of that committee for their work in that inquiry and, of course, to the committee secretariat as always.

The concerns raised by coalition senators in particular highlight the power that the amendments in this bill provide to the minister to direct ACMA to make or vary television licence area plans. These licence area plans, of course, set the boundaries into which different television broadcasters operate. While it is likely that there will be some change to licence areas, it appears the powers provided by these amendments offer, to some degree, free rein to the minister and ACMA in terms of those boundary changes, with few restrictions put in place. While I would not expect ACMA to just draw random maps for the sake of it, this is still a concern in terms of the lack of boundary and direction provided for in the bill. I also note that ACMA could allocate additional licences in some broadcast areas, potentially to significant industry players, which of course would come with a detrimental effect on existing broadcasters. In fact, in the Senate inquiry, the Department of Broad­band, Communications and the Digital Economy testified that the bills contained:

… no express prohibition on ACMA allotting broadcasting spectrum in whatever way it sees fit.

Of course, these are important issues, and local stations with local programming content and local advertising provide a great community benefit and help to foster strong, vibrant regions. They are good for regional business, good for regional people and good for regional communities as a whole. While the legislation and these amendments that provide for this capacity may all be of good intention, sometimes good intentions go astray and there is nothing wrong, of course, with taking a precautionary approach in relation to such amendments. On this basis, I would invite the minister to provide some response to those issues raised by coalition senators and to provide some comfort in regard to the overall capacity of the minister and ACMA to exercise these powers in relation to the boundaries and the allotting of broadcasting spectrum.

Prior to the finalisation of the restacking exercise and to achieving the entire dividend, critically related to this is the switch-over itself—the switch-over from the analog signal to the digital signal, which has already taken place in parts of my home state of South Australia as well as parts of Victoria and Broken Hill. It is quite clear that the planning for the switch-over and preparation for it has--certainly in my experience dealing with parts of regional South Australia--been somewhat lacking. Hundreds if not thousands of people in the regional switch­over area in SA are experiencing problems. They have contacted my office; I have spoken to them through media outlets and received their calls in many, many cases. We have written on many, many occasions detailing dozens and dozens and dozens of particular examples—and I am sure there are many more for all those who have contacted my office—in regard to problems people are having with the switch-over. Many of these problems remain and we are still getting new calls and inquiries some six months after the analog signal was switched off in parts of regional South Australia.

Unfortunately, the government seems to have failed to provide sufficient information to many households about how their antennas are set up and what things are needed for the switchover other than just getting the technology of a box or a new television in place. This failure has left them with poor or no television reception. In other cases there are technical reasons for why people are not getting the quality of television service that they previously enjoyed under the analog system. While Senator Conroy is well aware of my concerns in this area, I hope he is aware that these concerns are shared by many of my coalition colleagues, especially surrounding the preparation of further communities for the switch-over in regional areas. There is a real concern in many communities that not all current analog terrestrial transmission sites will be replaced with digital terrestrial transmission facilities. This, of course, will mean that many people who currently receive a terrestrial signal will have to switch to the VAST satellite service.

The government's VAST satellite service program—to cost some $375 million over 12 years—replaces community funding models which allow communities to invest in self-help transmission or retransmission services that allowed them to access terrestrial facilities. The minister ought to be aware, and others have made these points, that of the 680 current self-help sites it is estimated that around 570 will not be upgraded to provide for digital retransmission. This will affect hundreds of communities in regional Australia and will see some 127,000 households move from a terrestrial television service to a satellite television service, losing the local connections and content which, as I highlighted earlier, are so significant and important for many regional communities. With another budget to come this evening—another budget, no doubt, of further waste and incompetence on the government's part—you would think that Senator Conroy and the government might have paid some attention, and I can live in the hope that perhaps they have, to the views and submissions of the Local Government Association of Queensland, which stated in its submission to the exposure draft of this bill:

… converting many if not most existing analogue self-help transmission sites to digital is a more convenient and cost effective way to approach a conversion to digital TV.

Indeed, moving from terrestrial to satellite television will not be a cheap exercise for taxpayers, households or, in particular, for many small businesses—especially for retire­ment homes, motels and caravan parks. Last week I was in Georgetown, in Northern Queensland, where the motel owners expressed their concerns about the expense of changing over from a terrestrial service that they currently have on a self-help basis to a satellite service that will cost them greatly to transform every room in their motel. With no subsidy scheme for businesses, unlike for households, there is a real question for people like the motel in Georgetown as to how such businesses are to provide television services and, in doing so, fund the considerable cost of the new satellite equipment. Many simply will not be able to afford the expense or will see it as another hit to the bottom line, especially in the tourism industry, as well as for all those other small businesses.

There is an alternative that others have outlined, and that is that the government should move to allow communities to pool their VAST subsidies to pay for upgrades to their existing retransmission sites to a digital retransmission service. This would be a sensible win-win outcome for communities who would get to keep a terrestrial service and in many cases for many taxpayers who would actually save on cost. For instance, in Normanton, also in Queensland, some 552 households will be eligible for the $700 Satellite Subsidy Scheme, which, in addition to the householder co-payment of between $200 and $350, could total up to $600,000 in costs for Normanton households to access the VAST satellite system. Meanwhile, the minister himself has stated that setting up a digital terrestrial facility to retransmit all of the VAST channels would cost between $110,000 and $270,000. I think we can see in this example that there are opportunities to save money in relation to this switchover from the types of programs the government has proposed.

Also, on the total cost for households, it is likely that in many instances the $200 to $350 co-payment ,which applies to upgrading only one household appliance, will not be enough given that we know many households have multiple televisions as well as recording devices, so this will be a considerable cost to households in those communities as well. Keeping a terrestrial signal in place wherever possible is simply good for communities, good for small businesses and good for tourism operators in particular. It is unfortunate that the government is not taking this approach and I would again urge the minister and the government more generally to reconsider and to look at ensuring, wherever possible, that it does support the maintenance of terrestrial facilities.

Communities are not just concerned about the cost of the switch-over; many are also worried about the time they have to prepare. Broadcasters who have undertaken to convert existing analog transmission facilities to digital are required to do so six months before the switch-over date in any particular given region. This is to ensure that households have enough time to ensure that their digital reception equipment is working correctly. Without this time, many people are left with no TV services when the analog signal switches off. Indeed, my office has received calls from many people who, following the switch-off of the analog signal in South Australia, were left with no signal and felt they had little information about what to do to upgrade and in some instances had not had access to a digital signal so far in advance. In fact, the six-month rule was not observed in South Australia or in Mildura, and I would hope the government does ensure in future that it is observed in all switch-over areas in all cases. The six-month opportunity for people is important if they are to ensure that all of their equipment is working correctly before the switch-off occurs. It is simply not good enough and, as I indicated before, my office is still receiving many, many calls from South Australians receiving poor reception who really could have done with extra time to ensure their equipment was working before the switch-over.

The coalition does recognise the need for the switch-over to digital-only television and we recognise this bill's role in this process. We do, however, implore the government to look at some of the measures I have outlined today that would enable more people to receive a terrestrial signal, would save taxpayer dollars and would ensure that people could continue to receive the terrestrial signal as well as ensure that those matters that have been debated in this place previously, such as the six-month rule for the switch-over, are maintained and observed by the broadcasters and by the government in the setting of the switch-over dates.

The coalition also recognises the import­ance of local content wherever possible, and this is another reason why the opportunities of terrestrial services should be maintained. Overall we do not oppose this bill. We do recognise that it provides the necessary framework measures, particularly to achieve the financial dividend for taxpayers and the benefits of the spectrum becoming available for new technologies and new uses and to ensure that we get out of that public good of spectrum the best available return for all Australians in an economic sense, in a social dividend sense and also for taxpayers. We would urge the government, in relation both to how it manages that process and in particular to how it continues in managing the digital switch-over, to heed some of the concerns, to look for opportunities for cost saving and to show us that it is up to managing this process effectively into the future.

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

I rise to add some comments on behalf of the Australian Greens, and I advise the Senate at the outset that the Greens will be supporting this bill. We have a number of concerns, which Senator Birmingham has outlined, and the concerns that we raise are very similar. I will give advance warning that I will be moving two second reading amendments that address in particular one of the issues that Senator Birmingham just raised.

This bill amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the Radio­com­muni­cations Act 1992. It has come in consequent to a process that we do support. The switch-over to digital television has been a long time coming. It has been delayed; it is probably running about a decade behind schedule considering when it was first proposed. It is appropriate that we are debating this legislation now with the process of the rollout where it is. The amendments introduce measures to effect­ively implement the reorganisation of digital television channels, to realise the digital dividend and to improve the regulatory framework for free-to-air digital TV services provided on the VAST satellite service and the switch-over to digital-only television.

The Australian Greens welcome the government announcement that 126 megahertz of broadcasting spectrum will be released as a digital dividend. This dividend will be released as a contiguous block of spectrum in the UHF band in the frequency range of 694 to 820 megahertz. The spectrum will become available as a result of the switch to digital-only television and the release of spectrum currently used for analog television. Digital switch-over will be completed in Australia, we understand, if all goes according to plan, by 31 December 2013.

The Greens have asked the government to estimate the overall revenue that will be raised by the auctioning of the digital dividend band, which of course is now an important and extremely valuable piece of taxpayers' property effectively. We have asked the government whether any sections of the band will be allocated for use by the emergency services or by other non-com­mercial services. I missed the first few minutes of Senator Birmingham's speech. I am not sure whether this is an issue that the coalition have taken an interest in or not. The Australian Communications and Media Authority should be able to tell us the commercial value of the 20-megahertz spectrum requested by the Police Federation of Australia on behalf of emergency services organisations, and we think that this information would be useful as the debate unfolds with regard to who gets what in the digital dividend.

We understand the government is still considering whether or not to reserve part of the digital dividend in the 700 megahertz band for police and emergency services, and if so how that will be organised. I will indicate now I have a number of questions with regard to this issue and a couple of others, and that I will be proposing that we take this bill into the committee stage so that we can debate some of these issues with the minister. We want to put on the record that the Greens' view is generally supportive of the proposal that we understand came forward from the Attorney, Mr McClelland, that 20 megahertz or thereabouts be reserved for these public safety agencies because it is vital for the services that Australians need during natural disasters and other critical events such as terrorist incidents, bushfires and so on, and that there are particular technical reasons why emergency service organisations are requesting that particular band of that particular part of the spectrum. As I understand it, all of Australia's police commissioners support the Attorney-General's proposal, including the New South Wales commissioner, who is the spokes­person on the matter, and the govern­ment's own chief commissioner, Tony Negus of the AFP, who in March 2011 told the Parlia­mentary Joint Committee on Law Enforce­ment how important access to that particular band is for police and emergency services workers. I understand the proposal is also backed by peak bodies representing fire authorities, ambulance services and so on across the country, and that the issue was raised at the February 2011 COAG meeting. So I suppose I am inviting at this stage the minister, if he is able to, to provide us with an update as to how that is going.

A hundred and twenty-six megahertz in the 700-megahertz range, the digital dividend, will soon be available for new users when Australia moves from analog to digital television, and of course police and emergency services are seeking 20 megahertz of that available spectrum, around 16 per cent of it. The remaining 84 per cent would then be available for auction to the big telecommunications carriers. I understand that there is resistance to the Attorney-General's proposal from the carriers and there has been a certain amount of debate in the public domain as to whether emergency services need that band, whether they are requesting something in the wrong place or whether it is irrelevant. Of course the carriers all want the available spectrum for commercial purposes, so they are just doing their jobs as well. I understand there is probably some contention even within the government, and maybe the minister can spell out for us what the views of the government are in this regard. I understand that the Attorney has a report from Access Economics which says that setting aside 20 megahertz of spectrum for natural disasters may not reduce the proceeds from auction because of the scarcity value of the spectrum, so in effect it decreases the amount that is available for bidding, which has been described as the waterfront property of radio spectrum.

There are essentially two alternatives to the Attorney's proposal. One is to insist that police and emergency services buy their communication services from commercial carriers. In effect, that means they would at this stage be reliant on Telstra, which is the only carrier in this space which has the reach that they need right across the country. This is the 'leave it to the free market' option that leaves our public safety agencies potentially at the mercy of Telstra, whose systems are not really built to importance level 1, which these services require for reliable, robust communications that survive natural disasters, to have that highest degree of network resilience that they obviously require.

The other option is to impose conditions on the commercial carriers which are successful in buying spectrum in this range at the forthcoming auctions. Such conditions would aim to ensure that the carriers meet the needs of police and emergency services, whether it be robustness, priority, security and so on. This approach was tried by the Obama administration in the States in 2008 and it failed because the carriers did not want to take on the onerous requirements that were necessary to meet the needs of first responders, quite understandably again. Their interests there are actually quite different. So subsequently President Obama reserved 20 megahertz for first responders in January 2011. They have rolled back in the US to the approach that the police and emergency services organisations are proposing here in Australia. If only mild conditions were imposed on the commercial carriers, the needs of first responders would not necessarily be achieved, and that is obviously something that they have great concerns about. We know the carrier systems regularly fail during natural disasters. Recognising that the NBN rollout will change the picture substantially, it is not going to change the underlying dynamic of the divergence of interests between the commercial carriers and emergency services personnel. So we believe that the Attorney-General's proposal probably has merit and is the only option that will ensure that police and emergency service authorities have the high-speed mobile broadband communica­tions that they effectively need in situations like natural disasters.

I understand that COAG has endorsed the need for these public safety agencies to achieve interoperability so as to protect the community in the range of circumstances that are foreseeable. I again give the minister notice now that I will be asking about that in the committee stage. This is a case obviously where the government's first priority, in our view, should be public safety and it should be the national interest rather than the interests first of the telecommunications carriers to maximise the value of the spectrum auction. I understand that a number of independent MPs are supporting the Attorney's proposal to reserve spectrum for natural disasters and other critical incidents. So we believe that public safety should come first and we are interested in pursuing the proposal to reserve spectrum for law enforcement agencies.

We come now to the other area that we addressed during the Senate inquiry earlier this year, which Senator Birmingham touched on in his remarks. It goes partly to the issue of pooling the Satellite Subsidy Scheme. During the caretaker period last year a letter from the department said the following concerning pooling:

The subsidy will be provided by way of a procurement model under which contracted satellite installers will be engaged to provide the equipment and installations for eligible households. It will not be paid directly. Because of this it does not lend itself to pooling of payments.

On 15 November last year I wrote again to the minister suggesting again the concept of pooling the SSS payments. This time the minister replied sometime around 21 December and in respect of the pooling matter a new series of arguments against pooling were raised. They were essentially twofold. Firstly:

Under the funding arrangements agreed to by the government for the satellite subsidy scheme, it is not possible to redirect funding from the scheme for other purposes such as making payments to councils to upgrade self-help facilities.

Secondly, the minister wrote:

I am also advised that pooling of the SSS funding in some areas could have the effect of increasing both the cost of the scheme to government and the copayment by individual households.

This is because—I am paraphrasing slightly here—of the model used maximising benefits from economies of scale that come from being able to contract for a specified number of households on a state-wide basis. If the number of households is reduced, the contractor's price might be expected to rise.

The Environment and Communications Legislation Committee report of March this year shows in a bit of detail the objections and the counterproposals that were put in this matter by the Local Government Association of Queensland, Broadcasting Australia in particular and the Remote Area Planning and Development Board of Queensland, who took a particular interest in these issues. They provided responses within their submissions to the Senate committee as the same points were made by the minister in a letter of 9 December to the chairman of RAPAD. On the first point we believe that, just as the cabinet submission in relation to the scheme may have specified it being used only for DTH reception, so a subsequent cabinet decision could sensibly alter such a restriction if the arguments were made and if they were accepted. On the second point the department and the minister have said that such a procedure would distort the SSS scheme and result in higher copayment charges for the few remaining homes within the SSS VAST conversion structure. It is a reasonable argument, but we respectfully disagree. No bidder to an SSS tender can alter any quoted price on the basis of changes to the predicted number of homes regardless of the reason. This is reasonably well established. The exact wording from schedule 3, which is the pricing schedule for the required RFT response, says:

The exact number of Registered Households that will participate in the scheme may be higher or lower (than outlined in the Schedule) … The list of locations participating in the scheme may also vary due to decisions by the broadcasters to, or not to, convert self-help sites to digital …

So people coming into this process are well aware that the numbers of households can change. The second argument that the minister put to us in his letter does not actually hold water according to the documents. It is clear that broadcasters can quite freely decide to upgrade a self-help facility or not to upgrade one that they previously said they would at any time. The department does not seem to be concerned at this significant potential for a rise or fall in SSS participation and any effect on remaining homes. This already happened at Orroroo in regional South Australia after, we understand, the regional contract was signed with Skybridge. They lost more than half the predicted regional South Australian business. The same happened with Cohuna in regional Victoria. This town of 1,800 residents was removed from the department's scheme town list early in December 2010 after the broadcasters decided to upgrade the self-help transmitter at the end of November. We understand that that occurred after the contract with Skybridge had already been signed. Finally, we understand that total SSS business in regional Victoria is only running at about a third of the original predicted rate in the RFT documentation.

The pooling concept is fairly simple. Funds equivalent to the Commonwealth contribution for the relevant location—whether it be 400, 550, 700 or 980, depending on location—plus the manage­ment fee which is paid to the contractor for every eligible home serviced multiplied by the expected eligible household numbers for the location would be handed to the relevant council. This is something that councils are requesting to at least have the option to be able to do. If the Commonwealth were concerned about such a transfer, it could certainly coordinate an RFT process for such self-help upgrades, resulting in the relevant councils or the local government association and the Commonwealth entering into a bulk contract for all such regional—but mostly remote Queensland—self-help upgrades. I think this is a good model that could be extended elsewhere. The relevant local council would be responsible for all the extra initial establishment costs and continuing maintenance and operational costs—which is what the local government authorities up there are actually proposing. I understand that the LGAQ and RAPAD have been conducting tests of various digital terrestrial self-help technical models, the aim being to demonstrate, for example, a remote Indigen­ous community self-help transmission model. Again, as Senator Birmingham out­lined for the chamber, this is about retaining local programming and local terrestrial transmission. It is not about constricting choice or taking money off people making the government's life more complicated but about preserving the local broadcasters that people are used to.

Clearly, once technical feasibility, bulk costs and ongoing maintenance are identified, the next issue will be: can we pool the contingent SSS to assist the initial rollout cost? The Greens believe there are justifiable concerns from those who have questioned the logic of requiring the 265-odd self-help licensees, involving around 460 facilities, to examine digital terrestrial self-help options during the period 30 March to the end of January 2011. It was impossible for such an examination to be undertaken when the equipment necessary for such endeavours was not actually available. So we note the department's comment during the inquiry that they are willing to accept the position taken by some councils in rural and remote areas who have said that they were opting for the subsidy but if they subsequently find that there is a better terrestrial solution which proves cost-effective they will be able to implement that and they would actually prefer to do that for their communities.

The Greens recognise that there has to be a mixture of solutions to get television to people across Australia—part of that being satellite, part of it terrestrial. The question, obviously, is how services can be delivered most effectively. These issues were very well canvassed in the committee report. We remain concerned, however, that some viewers may be forced to receive a VAST service in rural and remote regions before alternatives have been tested. We understand that government may consider lengthening the time frame for consideration of self-help solutions and application for the scheme.

We have a second reading amendment which calls on the government to do this and I will move that shortly. We also have another second reading amendment that calls for an independent review. We may have created a certain amount of confusion in calling for a review that will actually be conducted before the rollout has concluded by 2013. That is intentional. Because it is a phased rollout, we will have a great deal of operational experience and we will have a very good idea of how the process has worked for the earlier regions once they have been bedded down, which we think will be useful to be conducted during the rollout in later regions, particularly as we start getting into the big metro areas. So we have some concerns remaining about the impact that these changes will have on the community and we believe that a review on the impact of delivery of television services to viewers across Australia, but in particular to regional and remote areas, should be undertaken no later than 24 months after the legislation has been put in place, which, as I say, will probably bring us in some time before the rollout has concluded. That is actually intentional. I move the two Greens amendments:

(1) At the end of the motion, add:

  but the Senate is of the opinion that the Government should extend the timeframes for the consideration of self-help solutions and applications in subsidy areas of the Satellite Subsidy Scheme.

(2) At the end of the motion, add:

  but the Senate is of the opinion that the Government should cause an independent review of the impact of the delivery of television services under this legislation on viewers across Australia, and in particular in regional and remote areas, to be undertaken no later than 2 years after the commencement of this legislation.

I conclude my comments and will come back with some questions for the minister, depending on the comments that he offers now.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly let me indicate on behalf of the government that it is our intention to oppose both of the second reading amend­ments that Senator Ludlam is proposing. It is our view that the proposed amendments would not have any practical effect upon the bill nor any practical effect in terms of constraining or obliging the government to do anything. We see them as being of no effect and we will oppose them.

In summing up on behalf of Minister Conroy, firstly let me say thank you to all honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Dividend and Other Measures) Bill 2011. After its introduction in the House on 24 February 2011, the bill was referred to the Senate Environment, Com­munication and the Arts Legislation Com­mittee for inquiry, as Senator Birmingham touched upon. The committee tabled their report in the Senate on 21 March 2011 and it recommended that the bill be passed.

The bill introduces amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the Radiocommunications Act 1992 that are crucial to effectively implementing the restack of digital television channels needed to realise the digital dividend. On 24 June 2010, the government announced that 126 megahertz of broadcasting spectrum would be released as a digital dividend as a result of the switch-off of analog television services. The switch to digital-only television will be completed in Australia by 31 December 2013, releasing the channels used for analog television. The digital dividend will be released as a contiguous block of spectrum in the ultra-high frequency, or UHF, band. The UHF spectrum currently used for broad­casting services is highly valued for delivering wireless communication services, including superfast mobile broadband. The government aims to auction the digital dividend spectrum in the second half of 2012.

In order to release this highly valued spectrum, digital broadcasting services will need to be relocated—or, as Senator Fifield prefers, 'restacked'—out of the digital dividend spectrum and organised more efficiently within the remaining spectrum. The government intends that the digital dividend spectrum be cleared by 31 December 2014. While ACMA has some scope under its existing powers to commence digital channel restack planning, the bill would give it more flexible planning powers and allow the restack of digital television channels to occur in a timely and efficient manner. The proposed amendments will also improve the regulatory framework for digital switchover and the delivery of both terrestrial and satellite free-to-air digital television services.

During the inquiry of the Senate Environment and Communications Legisla­tion Committee into the provisions of the bill, some submissions raised concerns that the bill favoured satellite conversion over terrestrial conversion. The government recognises that both terrestrial infrastructure and a satellite service are required to provide all Australians with access to the full range of digital television services. Government policy does not advocate a preferred method of digital television reception. I might also take this opportunity to respond to Senator Birmingham's concerns regarding regional Australia by simply saying that this government is very proud indeed to have finally brought to viewers in regional and remote Australia, through our switchover program and the launch of a new satellite service, access to the same number of digital television channels as people in the capital cities enjoy. This is a historic outcome for viewers in regional and remote Australia, who for decades have received less choice and arguably lower quality reception in their television viewing than people have in the capital cities.

The bill will amend the conditional access scheme to provide commercial broadcasters in remote Western Australia with the opportunity to roll out their terrestrial digital television services before viewers they intend to serve can access the VAST satellite service. This will help to protect the integrity of the larger terrestrial television markets in remote Western Australia and avoids the need for viewers to purchase satellite reception equipment unnecessarily. The bill also proposes to allow viewers access to the VAST satellite service after a specified time after switchover in their licence area if it provides a superior number of commercial digital television services, including digital multichannels that are otherwise available terrestrially in their area. These provisions will provide the commercial broadcasters with the incentive to roll out all of their terrestrial digital television services before viewers in the area will be able to automatically access VAST.

Although commercial and national broadcasters can apply to the minister for exemption from converting terrestrial digital transmission sites under very limited circumstances, it is important to note that this exemption is not automatic. It is within the minister's discretion, having regard to the statutory criteria outlined in the bill, whether to grant a broadcaster an exemption. An exemption cannot be granted where a service has already commenced transmitting in digital. These provisions are intended to, amongst other things, minimise situations where consumers need to purchase both satellite and terrestrial reception equipment to receive the full suite of digital television channels. The bill will progress the government's digital television switchover program and will help realise the digital dividend, bringing significant social and economic benefits to all Australians. On behalf of the government, I commend the bill to the Senate.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a brief statement with respect to the amendments.

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for two minutes.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I shall make it brief and try to cover both amendments at once. In relation to the amendment that I think we are considering first—that is, the one relating to self-help solutions and sites and the potential to be able to pool funds—this was an area that I spent some time discussing in my remarks during the second reading debate. The coalition are favourably disposed to support the motion of the Greens in that regard. We think that it makes a lot of sense, that it provides positive outcomes for communities in terms of increasing the scope of terrestrial services and has the opportunity to provide positive outcomes for taxpayers by minimising the amount spent on satellite subsidies. So I indicate our support in that regard.

In relation to the amendment relating to a review, which I think we will deal with subsequently, the coalition will not be supporting that amendment. I hope the government are in a process of, shall I say, 'continuous learning' with regard to the digital switchover—that is, that as problems are uncovered in each region, they actually learn the lessons and address them before the next region, and in particular address them before we get to the 2013 switchover of metropolitan areas around Australia. I do not know that a formal review part-way through the process is going to add to this. I think it is far more important for the government to actually be learning those lessons as they go, fixing it as they go and getting it right as they go. That is what the coalition would be urging them to do. Therefore we will not be supporting the amendment on sheet 7053 pertaining to a review.

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

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for two minutes.

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

Then we can go into committee and we can leave these issues be. I thank Senator Birmingham for his support on at least one of these, as I think the issues that we were concerned about are sub­stantially pretty similar. It is about giving people time to make better arrangements, since they seem to be technically and economically feasible. I would invite the minister and maybe call him on his response when he spoke briefly to these amendments, saying—I am paraphrasing—'You are not compelling us to do anything so these amendments are irrelevant.' I think that is a rather cavalier attitude to take to an amendment which I believe the chamber will shortly carry that 'the government should extend the timeframes—as this amendment proposes—for consideration of self-help solutions and applications in subsidy areas of the SSS'. That is inviting the government to do something constructive.

We have moved this in the form of a second reading amendment, and perhaps I should get it drafted as a committee amendment to compel the government to do exactly that. But I thought that, as a sign of goodwill, particularly with coalition support, a second reading amendment effectively advises the government that the chamber wishes it to take action in a certain way. I do not think we are asking anything unreason­able at all. It does not compel the gov­ernment to unpick the structure of the subsidy scheme. We are inviting the government to take another look at some of the constructive proposals that have been set forth by local government associations and Broadcasting Australia. I wonder whether the minister might indicate that the government would be prepared to take this amendment in the spirit in which it is proposed.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move second reading amendment on sheet 7053:

At the end of the motion, add:

but the Senate is of the opinion that the Government should cause an independent review of the impact of the delivery of television services under this legislation on viewers across Australia, and in particular in regional and remote areas, to be undertaken no later than 2 years after the commencement of this legislation.

Question negatived.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.