Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Primary Television Broadcasting Service) Bill 2015. I am glad to inform the House that the opposition supports this bill. Its clear purpose is to amend the Broadcasting Services Act so that commercial broadcasters Seven, Nine and Ten as well as national broadcasters, the ABC and SBS, can broadcast their primary television channel in either standard definition or in high definition. Currently, these broadcasters are restricted to broadcasting their primary channel in standard definition. This restriction now seems old and anachronistic but it was not always. It was introduced at the beginning of the digital switch-over process to ensure that all Australians could access the television content that they love at a time when only a small but growing proportion of us had access to HD-enabled televisions or set-top boxes. In 2015, this law, enacted to protect consumers, is no longer required.

In February last year, more than 96 per cent of Australian households had access to an HD-enabled television or set-top box. Today it is reasonable to assume that number is now even higher than 96 per cent. Access to high definition television is now nearly universal. Today Australians have access to a range of entertainment options, from SVOD services like Netflix, Presto and Stan to Apple TV and the humble DVD or pay-television services like Foxtel. But the principle of free and ubiquitous access to free-to-air television is still extremely important, particularly for those Australians who cannot afford the luxury of these pay services.

Our free-to-air networks are the home of our big events, and in particular our big sporting events. You can see that by looking at the top five rating shows since 2001 based on the OzTam ratings. At No. 1 is the royal wedding of William and Kate, which attracted an audience of six million; No. 2 is the 2005 Australian Open Tennis final, which attracted an audience of four million; No. 3 is the 2010 Masterchef finale, with four million viewers; No. 4 is the 2003 Rugby World Cup final, with an audience of four million Australians; and No. 5 is the 2009 Masterchef finale, with 3.74 million people watching that program. Another way to look at this is the top five rating programs of 2014. They were, in first place, the AFL Grand Final; in second place, the My Kitchen Rules finale; in third place, The Block Glasshouse finale in fourth place, NRL Grand Final; and, in fifth place, State of Origin Game 2. So you can see that big sporting events like the AFL and the NRL grand finals and State of Origin games are amongst the most popular programs on free-to-air television.

Australians justifiably expect that the shows and events they want to watch will be broadcast using the best technology available, and that means removing this restriction that currently exits and allowing broadcasters to broadcast in HD on their primary channel. Many free-to-air broadcasters already offer high-definition content on their secondary channels. We have seen examples of this. The Ashes as well as round games of the NRL and AFL can already been seen on secondary channels in HD. However, anti-siphoning legislation prevents the major sporting events from being premiered on a secondary channel. So events like the AFL or the NRL grand finals or, for that matter, the Melbourne Cup can at the only be shown in standard definition. This needs to change.

The rapid passage of this legislation through this House and through the Senate will provide the potential for broadcasters this year to show the grand finals in the two major football codes in high definition if they wish. That may not be possible, though. I understand from the briefings we have received that a number of technical upgrades and changes are required. To be fair, this legislation could have and should have been introduced a couple of months ago to enable that to happen. I know that my colleague the member for Chifley, Ed Husic, has been lobbying for this legislation for many months. But this where it is and I am glad that the legislation is finally here.

Whilst once upon a time this regulation was essential to protect the interests of Australian consumers, it has now served its purpose and is no longer required. So I am very glad to commend this bill to the House and, in doing that, I congratulate the member for Chifley, Ed Husic, for his work in pressuring the government to accelerate the introduction of this legislation. I look forward to watching the mighty Parramatta Eels in high definition with him in 2016.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Primary Television Broadcasting Service) Bill 2015. This is an important bill which amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to allow free-to-air broadcasters to deliver programing on their primary television services in either standard definition or high-definition formats.

In the time available to me, I would like to firstly briefly review the history of digital television and why there was at the time a mandate that the primary channel needed to be in standard definition. Secondly, I want to make the point that times have now changed and the continuation of that requirement would mean that Australians were missing out on the full potential of digital television. And, thirdly, I want to explain, therefore, the rationale for the legislation which is before the House this afternoon.

Let me start with the historical rationale for the requirement which presently applies to free-to-air broadcasters that they must transmit their primary service in standard definition. This is a requirement which was introduced at the start of the digital switch-over process, which was more than 10 years ago. At the time, the installed base of television receivers was heavily dominated by analog television devices, reflecting the fact that for many, many years television had been analog and digital television had only commenced in around 1999 or 2000. Therefore, at the time the switch-over commenced, not all televisions and set-top boxes were capable of receiving high-definition content. Let me explain that point. The earliest digital television receivers were mostly limited to standard definition. Only a minority of people at that time had high-definition devices, and those were very expensive. Indeed, many people were viewing digital television through a set-top box, which took the digital signal and converted it into something which could be viewed on their analog device. So, at the time this requirement was introduced, the majority of people were not able to receive a high-definition signal. The majority of people at that time were experiencing and accessing digital television through a standard-definition device, and it therefore made sense for there to be a requirement that the primary channel was a standard-definition channel.

The context goes back to the introduction of digital television in 2000. At that time, the existing commercial and national television broadcasters were given another seven megahertz of spectrum in addition to the seven megahertz spectrum they had long held which they were then using to deliver analog television, and they commenced broadcasting in digital as well. In the old analog world, that seven megahertz of spectrum was required to deliver a single channel, and consequently Australians, and indeed television viewers around the world, for decades had been used to the notion that a particular broadcaster—such as, in the Australian context, the ABC, Seven, Nine, Ten or the SBS—delivered a single channel into a metropolitan market, or indeed non-metropolitan markets as well. The arrival of digital television created a cornucopia of new possibilities, because that seven megahertz of spectrum translates into roughly 20 megabits per second of capacity to broadcast, and the innovation with digital television is that you can divide up that 20 megabits per second in a range of ways, and you can deliver a standard-definition signal or you can deliver a high-definition signal. The high-definition signal takes up more data but it produces a higher quality picture.

It was this technological change which needed to be reflected in a range of policy settings. As I have indicated, one of those policy settings was the requirement that the broadcasters must broadcast their so-called primary channel in standard definition. Let me just touch on that for a second. We had had this notion for decades that there was a single channel that a broadcaster delivered, but what happened was that the broadcasters introduced a couple of additional channels. For example, for quite a number of years now Channel 9 has had its primary channel, Channel 9, and its other two channels, GO! and GEM. Seven, for example, has Channel 7, 7TWO and 7mate. But the notion of the original single channel continuing as the primary channel became a commonplace way of thinking about the offerings, and it was reinforced by this legislative requirement that the primary channel must be in standard definition as a means of continuing to ensure the maximum access to that channel, reflecting the fact that, certainly at the time when this requirement was introduced, only a small number of people were able to receive a high-definition service—because, as I have explained, the high-definition television receiver was much more expensive than a standard-definition receiver.

The second point I want to make is that times have changed since the digital television legislation was introduced and took effect in 2000. That is why it is now timely to be updating the legislation to remove this requirement that the primary channel must be broadcast in standard definition. On 10 December 2013 we completed, as a nation, the switch-over process. From that point, there was no longer anywhere in Australia an analog signal being broadcast on a simulcast basis with the digital signal. We had moved completely to digital, following a process which had taken over a decade. During that period, there was an enormous change in the composition of the national fleet, if I can call it that, of digital television receivers and set-top boxes.

We arrived at an outcome where, according to a Newspoll survey conducted in February 2014, 96 per cent of all households had a main television set or a set-top box that was capable of receiving high-definition content. In other words, over that period of 14 years we had moved from an environment in which only a small number of people had a digital television receiver or set-top box and, of those, the majority were standard definition, to a world in which just about everybody had a digital television receiver or set-top box and the vast majority of those were capable of receiving high definition. That, of course, reflects technological evolution, the growth of the market and the very significant increase in scale in the number of digital television receivers and set-top boxes being manufactured by the major manufacturers around the world. We have witnessed over that period of 13 or 14 years a very sharp drop in the price of a digital television receiver or set-top box.

In short, we are now at a point where the concerns which originally motivated the requirement that the primary channel must be broadcast in standard definition—essentially an equity concern that many people would not be able to view a high-definition signal—is a concern that largely no longer exists, because of the very high penetration of high-definition television receivers and set-top boxes.

Yet prior to the change which is embodied in this legislation we have continued to have in the legislation the notion of a primary channel and this requirement that the primary channel must be delivered in standard definition. That has had a somewhat perverse outcome because of the fact that the primary channel typically continues to be the one which is highest rating and therefore continues to be the one on which the broadcasters show their most valuable and attractive content, particularly the marquee sporting events such as the AFL and NRL grand finals. We have therefore had the curious consequence that those highly desirable programs that millions of Australians want to watch are being seen in standard definition by many people rather than high definition as an inadvertent consequence of a regulatory setting that was put in place some 15 years ago for what at the time was a very good reason.

That does seem a shame. Australians love their sport. We love to watch sporting events of all kinds on TV, and the capacity of high-definition television to give us the richest possible viewing experience is something that Australians very much value, but we have had this curious consequence of the existing regulatory framework that we are not making the highest possible use of the technology. We are not capturing the full potential of the technology, because even though, as the numbers show us, the vast majority of Australians have a high-definition television receiver or a set-top box and are capable of viewing high-definition television, because of this existing regulatory setting, the primary channel has not been used by the broadcasters to deliver high-definition content in a way that it could be. That is the issue which the effect of the bill before the House this afternoon will fix.

The bill this afternoon simply will now give the flexibility to the broadcasters—both the national broadcasters and the commercial broadcasters—to broadcast the primary service in either standard definition or high definition as they choose. To think about it another way, this in effect gives the broadcaster or the licence holder the capacity to choose which channel it treats as its primary channel, which channel it markets and positions as its primary channel. It can do that knowing that, however it makes that decision, it can broadcast in high definition or standard definition as it chooses.

Again I come back to the fact that digital television is a technology with enormous flexibility. There are no technical limitations on slicing up that 20 megabits per second in a range of different ways. Perhaps I will rephrase that: there are some technical limitations on it, but there is certainly much greater flexibility there than existed in analog television days, when your only option was to use the entirety of your spectrum allocation to broadcast a single analog channel. The guiding philosophy behind this legislation is to remove a regulatory burden which no longer does useful public policy work but, on the contrary, in fact constrains the capacity of the broadcasters on the one hand and viewers on the other to take advantage of the full potential of digital television.

This is a measure which delivers considerable consumer benefit. Australians love our sport. We love watching sport on TV as well as going to live events and we like to see the highest possible quality broadcast that we can. We have the technology which allows sport to be broadcast in high definition. We have not been taking full advantage of that capacity. The measures in this bill will remove an unnecessary regulatory restriction and will in turn allow the broadcasters to meet the desire of Australians to see the sport that they want to see in the highest quality standard that is available with the technology that we have. This is a measure which removes a regulatory requirement which is out of date and no longer does useful work, and it will as a consequence deliver a significant consumer benefit. I commend the bill to the House.

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to make a contribution to this debate on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Primary Television Broadcasting Service) Bill 2015. The bill amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to allow commercial and national free-to-air broadcasters to provide their primary television broadcasting services in standard definition or high definition—SD or HD. Currently, the free-to-air broadcasters are required to broadcast their primary services in SD only.

In January this year the Department of Communications released the consultation paper on digital television regulation, which sought views on future arrangements for digital television regulation. The bill implements the proposed measure from the review to allow free-to-air broadcasters to provide their primary service in either SD or HD, and I think it is instructive to look at some of those key questions in the context of this debate that we are having today.

Firstly, in section 1.3, consideration is given to the primary channel, and it states:

This paper also considers whether the distinction between a television broadcaster’s primary channel and any other multi-channels remains relevant in a digital-only world.

It then turns to two preliminary government positions. Firstly, it states:

The requirement for the primary channel to be provided in standard definition will be removed.

And it states there will be:

No reintroduction of a quota requiring a specified amount of HD content

I also think it is instructive to look at some of the small number of submissions that were made to that review and what their views were on these key questions. For example, in relation to removing the requirement to provide standard definition for the primary channels, Free TV states:

The requirement for the primary channel to be provided in standard definition is outdated and should be removed. In an all-digital environment, this requirement no longer has any relevance.

Furthermore, Free TV also supports the position not to go ahead on the reintroduction of a quota which specifies an amount of HD content, and it states:

There are sufficient commercial incentives for broadcasters to provide content in HD without a quota requirement.

Very similarly in terms of the high-definition issues, the Community Broadcasting Association of Australia supports the position not to reintroduce a quota requiring a specified amount of high-definition content. It further submitted:

Beyond a requirement for primary services, providing flexibility to broadcasters seems the best way to allow agile response to technological changes and maintain an appropriate balance. Soon enough there may be pressure for Ultra High Definition.

And I am sure that is not too far away.

I want to mention the submission by ACCAN. In its comments, ACCAN made a specific reference to deaf or hearing-impaired Australians. They note:

… Australians who are Deaf or hearing impaired, or indeed any Australians who rely on closed captions to enjoy television do not have access to the ‘full range’ of free‐to‐air broadcast television due to the fact that only primary channels are required to provide 100 per cent closed captioning and this is only between the hours of 6am and midnight.

It goes on to state:

ACCAN’s research indicates that over 30 per cent of Australians use closed‐captions some of the time when watching television and it is widely known that many Australians who are Deaf or hearing impaired rely on closed‐captions to gain meaningful access to television news, information and entertainment. The numbers will only increase in future decades due to the impact of current demographics.

The reason I specifically raised that is I that want to acknowledge the work that is being done by ACCAN, Vision Australia and a number of other groups with whom they have partnered. Many members and senators would have dropped in today to the session by Vision Australia, an informative event on audio description. Indeed, its heading was 'How do you watch television when you are blind?'

I want to acknowledge Vision Australia and thank them for bringing this to the attention of members. I have raised this in the House on previous occasions, and I think it is a key issue that we need to address as a parliament, to ensure that we are as inclusive as possible in our broadcasting and general communications regimes.

Turning back to these issues of SD and HD, the explanatory memorandum states:

The proposed measure was strongly supported by both industry and by members of the public who are in favour of watching major events, including sporting events, in HD format.

As a result of this bill there will be a number of consequential amendments to the anti-siphoning regime under schedule 4 of the BSA and a number of other provisions. The explanatory memorandum also states:

The proposed changes would not materially affect the operation of these parts, but take into account the proposed amendment to allow a primary service to be broadcast in SD or HD.

I think it is instructive to consider the difference between SD and HD. It is fundamentally one of resolution. HD allows for more pixels, the miniscule areas of illumination or colour that combine to make up the pictures that we see on various devices. When we view them on the screen, compared with SD broadcasting, they lead to a sharper image.

As I mentioned, we are now seeing ultra-HD broadcasting or 4K broadcasting, which see even more pixels displayed at specific resolution levels. But resolution is not the only difference. There is a difference when it comes to the aspect ratio. In a nutshell, SD can be displayed in both four to three—that is, for every four inches wide the picture needs to be three inches tall—and 16 to nine, which is letterboxed, while HD is displayed in 16 to nine only. Fundamentally, what this all means is that the user experience is better on HD than on SD as it offers a sharper and clearer picture.

This change has been strongly supported by both industry and the general public. It allows commercial and national broadcasters to determine the best mix of services and format for their audiences. I agree that the requirement to provide the primary service in SD is outdated, and this bill is indeed a sensible update to reflect this. It is obvious that the Australian public want to enjoy their favourite content, especially sport, on high-definition television.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the specific advocacy which has been done by the member for Chifley on this issue. Six or so months ago, in February this year, he indeed addressed the parliament, and I think it is appropriate to reiterate some of the content of that contribution in this context. He said:

In 2014 I was staggered that you still could not get, on your primary channel, the main sporting events of this country on high definition. It is something that I raised publicly at the time, and I was very critical of the fact that free-to-air channels do not do this, but they commendably and patiently explained that it was not entirely their fault.

They certainly do feel the anger, the ire, of footy fans. In particular I note this one on the fan site BigFooty, who said:

'In this modern era with billion dollar TV rights it is nothing short of a joke that our sports biggest day is shown in SD.

… … …

Some might say "get over it" or "not first world problem" but this is a massive industry and the great game is let down by not being telecast in HD.'

Fair call! So why are we being so poorly done by?

He goes on:

In December 2013, Free TV Australia wrote to Minister Turnbull requesting a change to the law to allow HDTV on the primary channels. They have proposed to the government that we get rid of the restriction on HD on the main channel. This is a quote from Julie Flynn. As she rightly points out:

'This is something they could do tomorrow. Just do it. It’s bleedingly obvious.'

This discussion paper was released in January and they are asking the industry to respond by March. As the industry association rightly points out, this could be done tomorrow. You do not need a discussion paper and you certainly do not need the red tape of a discussion paper to do it.

He goes on:

I certainly think the public would appreciate it if we were able to change the law, cut the red tape and make sure our sports are in high definition glory. It is the least we could expect in this day and age … Certainly the bulk of the public, and those who do not have subscriber TV, should be entitled to see something that in this day and age, in other parts of the world, is freely available. You would expect a country as great as ours to be able to show the sports the public love.

Some six months later, despite the fact that that discussion paper did go ahead, I am sure the member for Chifley would be very pleased with the position that we have arrived at today.

I want to mention briefly the potential human rights implications of the bill. I agree that this bill is compatible with those obligations. It potentially engages a number of human rights, specifically the rights of people with a disability, the right to equality and nondiscrimination and the right to freedom of opinion and expression.

As noted in the explanatory memorandum, rates of HD equipment penetration are very high. In 2014, Newspoll found that 96 per cent of all households had a television set or set-top box that provided them access to high-definition content. I suspect that the number would be even higher if we were to take that poll today. Also, it is likely that people with a disability already have access to HD channels due to a number of schemes and supplements offered by the Commonwealth. As stated in the explanatory memorandum:

To the extent that the measures in the Bill may engage rights … as outlined above, the measures are reasonable and proportionate to the goal of reducing the regulatory burden on the broadcasting industry and providing the Australian community with access to high quality free-to-air programming.

I want to raise in my closing comments some of the minister's own remarks in his second reading speech on this bill. The minister mentioned the transition we are seeing in how video content is being consumed. The minister noted, in part:

As so much more of the program video content is going over the top—that is to say, it is being provided over streamed internet services like Presto, like Netflix, like Stan—and as viewers want to be able to watch episode drama programs, for example, at their convenience, the value of live events, particularly live sport, is of greater and greater importance.

I will take up those points about some of these video-on-demand services. As the minister would know, fast and reliable broadband connectivity is crucial to allowing all Australians to enjoy these services. Unfortunately, this is something that the minister is actively stifling by pursuing his multitechnology-mix model.

You do not have to take it from me. You only need to look at last week, at comments made by Presto on 31 August. The headline is 'Presto says Australia's internet speeds too slow for 4K content and blames new NBN'. That is precisely what it says: 'too slow for 4K content and blames new NBN'. I quote:

THE country is missing out on the latest television technology because the Federal Government abandoned the original National Broadband Network plan and banished households to inadequate broadband speeds, according to a top Presto executive.

The TV-streaming firm—

that is, Presto—

will officially launch new phone and tablet apps, Apple TV streaming, and high-definition content for subscribers on Tuesday—

that is, last week—

but it will postpone offering 4K content until broadband speeds improve in Australia.

Presto IP services senior product manager Richard Cole said the company had considered offering 4K streaming content but decided broadband speeds in the country were not yet up to the task.

Mr Cole is quoted:

With an NBN as per the original design, it wouldn't have been an issue to do 4K (content) …

The article goes on to note:

Australia's average internet speed is just 6.9 Mbps—

megabits per second—

according to the Akamai State of the internet report, bringing its ranking to 44th in the world, and barely enough to stream 720p high-definition video.

The article ends in part by noting:

Australia's original NBN plan involved connecting fibre optic cable to most homes, while the new plan uses a mix of slower technology, including the old copper … network.

There you have it, Mr Deputy Speaker. While this bill is a welcome move, the minister's handling of our broadband infrastructure is inhibiting the ability of Australians to enjoy high-quality, high-definition, over-the-top services. They are the consequences. They are the facts from the providers themselves.

In conclusion: this bill provides a sensible update to the BSA. It will allow Australians to view their favourite television programs and sporting matches in HD. I want to acknowledge the advocacy of many who have contributed to this important development, specifically the member for Chifley, who I am sure will be very pleased with this. It is just a pity that he and I will not be watching our beloved Eels in this year's grand final, but there is always next year.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a Carlton supporter, I say that every year!

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am glad to be able to speak to the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Primary Television Broadcasting Service) Bill 2015. Digital television has been the No. 1 point of aggravation in my electorate of Paterson since before the digital TV switchover. I have made more speeches on this topic in this parliament than perhaps any other topic. I am advised by ACMA that over 50 per cent of all the complaints nationally on digital television reception emanate from my electorate. So I see this as a good process. I see it as a good process because people will be able to receive high-quality, high-definition television in their houses. But I would be less than honest if I did not say that digital television has been the bane of my existence now for over three years. Ever since the previous Labor government switched off the analog TV in my electorate of Paterson back in November 2012 for digital TV, services have diminished.

This bill amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to enable free-to-air broadcasters to deliver programming on their primary television service in either standard-definition or high-definition formats. Currently, free-to-air broadcasters are required to transmit their primary service in standard definition only. This reform arose from a review of the digital television regulatory framework conducted in 2014-15, of which I was in strong support, and the proposal received strong support from the free-to-air broadcasters and the general public alike.

To provide some level of context: prior to the digital switchover in November 2012, I warned the previous Labor government. I met with the then minister, Senator Conroy, and I advised him that the existing self-help transmitters would have to be upgraded, and there would need to be new transmitters installed across my electorate to ensure that my constituents would continue to receive reliable television reception. The last analog services ceased in Paterson, as I said, in November 2012, and a reorganisation of television services, or restack, commenced in my electorate at that time. It was designed to utilise most efficiently the digital dividend spectrum resulting from the switch to digital television, but what resulted was an intermittent or, in many towns in Paterson, nonexistent digital television reception.

My electorate is an electorate of immense topography—valleys and lots of treed areas—and the analog signal transmitted will travel through the valleys. It was not an either-or, which the digital signal is. People would get a fading of a signal. They did not always get sound, but they would not lose their picture entirely. If they were watching the golf, I suppose the ball would get lost in the snow, but they would maintain a picture. There is nothing more frustrating with a digital television signal that is there one minute and not there the next. This is what my constituents, in large part, have had to deal with. In fact, thousands of my constituents over the last three years have absolutely suffered through unreliable digital television reception. Areas like Karuah, the Tilligerry Peninsula, Medowie, Stroud, Gresford and Bulahdelah have either very little service or no service at all. Prior to 2012, as I said, these residents had had a reasonably reliable analog reception to fall back on. Now they do not. This has created an extremely intense environment when, for instance, the cricket is being broadcast or when the tennis or the football grand finals are on TV. My constituents were reconciled to the fact that more often than not their television reception would give way and they would be faced with a blank television screen instead of watching—I suppose in a dream—the Ashes come back to Australia.

I welcome this bill, as it proposes amendments that require the broadcasters to provide their primary service in both high definition and standard definition. I will welcome it even further when all of my constituents can actually receive a reliable television signal. Ten years ago, when the requirement for broadcasters to provide primary services in standard definition was introduced, this was at the infancy of digital switchover processes. At this time not all televisions were capable of receiving high-definition content. In fact, most of the first range of digital televisions were standard-definition televisions. However, in a contemporary setting this landscape has dramatically changed, even in regional and rural areas such as Paterson. A recent Newspoll survey found that 96 per cent of households have a main television set or a set-top box capable of receiving high-definition content. Naturally, as high-definition television can now be found in almost every Australian home, many Australians now expect premium quality free-to-air programming to be provided in high definition. This is especially true for the sports-mad constituents of Paterson when it comes to live sport. This requirement to provide the primary channel in standard definition is now unnecessary and prevents broadcasters from providing services that respond to audience preferences.

This was only further aggravated for the constituents of Paterson, who, when they thought they could view their favourite sporting matches and could finally get a signal, would suffer from poor-quality television and not receive the high definition that they would prefer. I keep saying it, but thousands of my constituents still suffer from poor digital television reception that regularly drops out, and even more on hot summer days—and, as we all know, it is over the summer period that our television screens are graced with an increase in sporting presence and people are on holidays and at home trying to watch that sport. As I said before, I am informed that over 50 per cent of all the complaints to ACMA actually came from my electorate. My electorate office phones would ring off the hooks for days, and I want to use this as an opportunity to tell my electorate that I have listened and I will continue to listen and, more importantly, this government is listening, unlike the former Labor government.

I also want to take the opportunity to update the House and my constituents of Paterson on what action has been recently taken to advance their cause as we receive some great news of great outcomes for Paterson in relation to digital television. I was and continue to be actively involved in the passionate debate with my local broadcasters, Regional Broadcasters Australia Holdings, which is made up of Prime, NBN, Southern Cross Ten, ABC and SBS. I also deal regularly with the Department of Communications and my ministerial colleague Malcolm Turnbull to try and fix these digital television reception issues that more than a third of my constituency suffer from. There are technical issues that need to be addressed: issues such as convergence of signal, which has a dramatic effect. But I will say that the regional broadcasters, who have a responsibility to transmit that signal in a reception as good as the analog signal was, have failed and they have dragged their heels, kicking and screaming, to come to the position we have been in over the last two years.

Two weeks ago, I welcomed my colleague the Minister for Communications, Malcolm Turnbull, to Paterson, where he announced funding of $827,690 to dramatically improve the issues of digital television for many of my constituents, particularly in the warmer arid months. This $827,000 of funding was secured from both the federal government and Regional Broadcasters Australia Holdings to improve digital television coverage in Paterson. Constituents will experience improved digital television transmissions at three sites under phase 1 of the rollout. One of these will be at Port Stephens—the Gan Gan transmitter. There will be a new tower facility installed at Bulahdelah, and there will be a new tower facility at Wallaroo, which will service Medowie, Salt Ash and the Tilligerry Peninsula. Close to 25,000 people will benefit from this improved transmission. Many will receive digital television for the first time.

But there are still works to be done and negotiations to be completed with the broadcasters for areas such as Stroud and the Dungog Vacy region. The RBAH in all negotiations are committed to the upgrades of Stroud and Dungog Vacy in phase 2 of their infrastructure upgrades, and I intend to keep them to their word to make sure that these areas are not left behind. I want to give assurances to the townships of Dungog, Vacy and Stroud: I will hold the RBAH to their commitment for your towns.

I was somewhat surprised and interested last night in this House in the adjournment debate by a speech by the member for Charlton. He made complaints about digital television transmission for his constituents. I acknowledge that he has only been here two years. That is probably the first time we have heard about it from him. But these problems would have been paralleled over the same time frame as those of constituents from my electorate, and his former boss, the former member for Charlton, did absolutely nothing about it, even though he was in government and had the opportunity to directly influence Senator Conroy, the then minister, to do something about it. He did nothing. He sat on his hands, just like the current member for Charlton has done for two years. He now wants to whinge because my lobbying has delivered the minister bringing together a package for my constituents. I have been lobbying for this, in honesty, for over five years.

I have had some complaints from other areas in my electorate that their services have not been upgraded yet. I commit to them that I will continue to fight for them. I also want to note that the Paterson-Tocal area recently received funding from the Commonwealth under the Mobile Black Spot Program. Their mobile telephone service was deemed to be the worst in my electorate. Other areas like Port Stephens and the Great Lakes missed out on the first round of funding, as their reception was deemed to be poor but not as bad.

Likewise, the RBAH identified Bulahdelah and Medowie—the Wallaroo area—as the worst areas for digital television. They had no infrastructure at all. The RBAH acknowledged that Stroud, Dungog and Vacy have digital TV reception issues with their existing infrastructure and acknowledged that this needs to be upgraded or moved. The RBAH have committed to fixing this problem themselves after the current phase 1 rollout is completed.

I welcome the implementation of this amendment bill for my constituents in Paterson and for the many ways that its introduction can directly benefit them. It can improve their viewing quality but, as I said, improved viewing quality actually comes with the ability to receive a television signal. I look forward to continuing my work for my constituents in Paterson and receiving real and tangible outcomes for the benefit of all of my constituents that improve their quality of life and recreational enjoyment, such as the recent win with digital television funding. I commend this bill to the House.

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to make a contribution to this debate and support the passage of the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Primary Television Broadcasting Service) Bill 2015. This is a reform that is overdue for many Australians. It will allow commercial and national free-to-air broadcasters to provide their primary television broadcasting services in high definition as well as the standard definition that is currently legislated for.

The speed of change in terms of technological advancement associated with TVs, high-definition viewing and the uptake of digital and high-definition television in Australia is quite remarkable. I think it is a great example of Australia's fondness for new technology. We are one of the leading nations when it comes to the penetration of smartphones in our community. We carry more smartphones than many other nations throughout the world. We also have great fondness for digital TV. I think that is a great indicator of Australia's relative wealth and high living standards, because when these new technologies come on the market they are often quite expensive.

When digital TV came to the Australian market many Australians took up the offer. Because many of the primary free-to-air broadcasts were not provided in HD, particularly some of the sporting events, many Australians took up subscription television services. Those who could afford it would pay the additional money each month to take up those subscription television services to be able to watch programs in high definition. It is wonderful to see finally that we are providing the opportunity for consumers to access those high-definition services on a more regular basis through free-to-air. This will allow greater consumer access to high-definition services when it comes to TV.

The other great revolution that has occurred in this space over many recent years has been greater consumer access to alternative media platforms. I am talking specifically of the internet, smartphones and the like. Many Australians now access a lot of their traditional television content, particularly sporting events, through smartphones and the internet. Again, I think it is testament to Australians' uptake of new technologies and new platforms to view these programs that we are one of the leading nations when it comes to viewing programs through this form.

The way the system currently works is that the primary service providers—the free-to-air channels: channels 7, 9, 10, ABC and SBS—are required to broadcast their primary services in standard definition. This has been the case for some years, particularly when we began the rollout of high-definition television throughout the country. To ensure that those who only had standard definition TV sets could continue to access primary TV services when the digital switchover was occurring there was a requirement for the free-to-air broadcasters to continue to provide that content on their free-to-air channels in a standard definition format.

Then we initiated the digital rollout. As I mentioned earlier, many Australians have revelled in the opportunity to install digital TV sets in their homes. I think you would have to say that that switchover, that rollout, has been a great success. In February 2014 Newspoll conducted a survey of Australians regarding the rollout of digital TV services and found that at the time 96 per cent of Australians had access to a digital TV or a set-top box to access high-definition content. Given the speed of the uptake of these services and digital TV technology, you would have to say that that number would well and truly have increased and be close to 100 per cent now.

With the completion of the digital switch-over and the availability of a range of new TV services and programs, many Australians now expect that their primary and their premium free-to-air programs will be provided in high definition, especially live sport. It is a great indicator of Australia's passion for sporting events—big sporting events like the AFL and NRL grand finals, the State of Origin, the Ashes and the summer cricket series, and the national soccer teams—that we now expect to view them in high definition. Some have said that the passage of this bill has a lot to do with the football finals coming up and providing that opportunity for the viewing of those big sporting events in high definition. I would like to hope that this is not just about that; it is actually about ensuring that Australians have access to the best quality digital TV services and as many programs as possible in high definition.

All manner of programs are now provided through high-definition platforms. Whether through subscription television services or free-to-air, many are now providing those high-definition programs. This is about ensuring the best quality viewing and the best platform that primary providers can provide. It is a fact that those primary providers are now competing with other platforms. Not only is there the need for access to the services; there is the need for primary providers to provide more programs in high definition simply to compete. If you are going to get a better quality service and better quality vision, particularly of a largest sporting event through a subscription TV service because they offer high definition, then many Australians will switch to the subscription service to view a particular sporting event. To ensure that those primary service providers can compete, it is important that they are providing those services in high definition.

There are some consequential amendments that are required to other legislation to ensure this change is possible. I am referring specifically to the antisiphoning legislation, which ensures that certain popular sporting events, high-demand sporting events, are provided on the free-to-air platform so that as many Australians as possible can access them. There is the rule that restricts a broadcaster from premiering an antisiphoning event on a non-primary multichannel. That particular rule would not apply to a broadcaster who offered a high-definition primary service but chose to firstly broadcast the antisiphoning event on a non-primary channel in standard definition. That is a result that we obviously wish to avoid through the passage of this bill. To avoid that result, a consequential amendment is required to the antisiphoning regime to ensure that the current rules continue to apply in the event of broadcasters electing to provide their primary service in high definition. That is a necessary amendment that arises from these reforms.

Many on this side of the parliament have been campaigning for many, many years now for this reform to ensure that Australians have access to the best possible viewing opportunities and the best viewing experiences in the best and latest technology. One of those individuals is the member for Chifley, Ed Husic, who has been a very passionate and tireless campaigner for this reform. Ed has been campaigning for as long as I can remember for this reform to be made by the Australian parliament. It is testament to Ed's work and the effort that he has put in to this particular campaign that this bill has come before the parliament and this reform is being made by the Australian government. Many Australians owe Ed a debt of gratitude for the work he has put in to ensuring this reform is made.

In conclusion, I am very pleased to support what I believe is an overture amendment. It will provide greater access to high-definition TV services on primary channels for a greater number of Australians. That will no doubt improve the quality of the delivery of television services in the country. That is a reform that is overdue but is worthy of support and has the full support of the Labor Party.

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Primary Television Broadcasting Service) Bill 2015. It will be a brief contribution, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Vasta. We switched to digital fully and completely in December 2014. There were a number anomalies in places and my office, like many other electorate offices, was swamped by any number of complaints. A lot of those turned out to simply be operational issues where people could not manage to retune their televisions. After a short period of time that all came around. There was one in particular person whom I would like to mention.

This gentleman was aware of ACMA. He had a large knowledge about the broadcasting act and communications legislation. In fact, he was quite demanding about how we might deal with the issue and how it affected him. Imagine my surprise when it turned out to be one Paul Neville, the former member for Hinkler and former chair of the infrastructure and communications standing committee. Mr Neville was well aware of the ways to address some of the issues and we did sort them out after a period of time. He now successfully has some quality digital television reception at his home.

This legislation is responding to an exponential change in the media and how it is working. Many of the people in the House and those listening on other broadcast services would be well aware that the media landscape is changing considerably and at an exponential rate. Regardless of whether you use a portable device like an iPad or an iPhone or whether you use a streaming service or Netflix or you choose to listen to your radio from Sydney, Melbourne or Western Australia, quite simply the landscape has shifted and we must shift with it. This is a common-sense change to legislation and one which is fully supported of course by both sides. It is a good outcome.

The things we do need to consider though are those people out there who it may affect. Currently there is a mandatory requirement for a standard definition broadcast, particularly for the AFL and NRL finals. With your indulgence, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Vasta, I would like to speak about that just briefly because it is something I am incredibly passionate about. During this NRL season it became very clear that there was a potential for two Queensland teams, the North Queensland Cowboys and the Brisbane Broncos, to actually finish one-two at the top of the table and potentially then go on to play a final. My greatest nightmare would be, as it would be for all local NRL supporters, the fact that those teams would come up against one another in the first week and, unfortunately, that is exactly what has happened. On this weekend, the Brisbane Broncos will play the North Queensland Cowboys. Fortunately it is not an elimination final but it will be a great game of football. I am sure lots of people will be out supporting it. However, we can still keep our fingers crossed, as passionate Queenslanders, that they will end up in the grand final. Imagine having two Queensland teams in the national rugby league grand final.

Mr Neumann interjecting—

The Intrust Cup is another great league. Thank you very much for the interjection, Mr Neumann. I am always passionate about rugby league.

Once this legislation is changed, if the broadcaster does choose—it is up to the broadcaster—to transmit in high-definition then those people out there who own HD TVs will get an incredibly clear picture. Television is one of those areas where there has been exponential change. In fact, the price of HD televisions has come down substantially. Many homes now own HD TVs. Whether you support that very strange game of AFL or you support the national rugby league, I am sure there are good opportunities.

I notice the member for Herbert has just entered the chamber. I am sure he will definitely speak about the North Queensland Cowboys and how fantastic they will look in HD broadcast when the opportunity occurs. I congratulate the minister for moving on with these things.

I would also low speak about the Save our Voices campaign. This is something which regional broadcasters and other media outlets have been running over a long period of time. I would like to put my views firmly on the record—that is, simply that the Communications Act at the moment will be a Pandora's box. We cannot cherry-pick the elements that one supporter or the other may well like to pick up. But if we do open the box, I think everything should be on the table because, as I said, the media landscape has shifted completely.

You can now read your news from anywhere in the country or in fact from anywhere in the world. You can take your broadcast directly from the US if you so choose. The communications legislation that was put together in the mid-90s is relatively ineffectual and certainly is not up with the times. However, if we are to open Pandora's box, we must ensure it is not an exercise in futility. It may well be, because if we cannot gain Senate support for changes which might be proposed, it will be a significant waste of time and resources of the parliament to even look at it.

There are also some amendments to the VAST service—that is, the free-to-air satellite—which also has a regulatory provision for standard definition broadcasts for local news—another mandatory requirement. There is a common-sense change that the broadcasters may elect to broadcast local news in HD if they so choose, so there is more flexibility. This is certainly a well supported piece of legislation. For those people in regional Australia, their No. 1 priority is actually getting reception of digital TV, to have a service that works consistently, one which is not washed out by storms or trees that move or wind that blows. Quite simply, they are the things that we must ensure happen with some urgency and as a No. 1 priority.

This is a common-sense change. I support the legislation fully. There will be an opportunity to broadcast those finals in HD. I look forward to seeing the Queensland teams out and running in positions one and two and then it will not matter—whichever to team gets up, Queensland will still be a winner. I commend the bill to the House.

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Primary Television Broadcasting Service) Bill 2015. I got a Facebook message from Cam Laird, a fantastic professional photographer in my electorate, who wanted to know when we are going to be able to broadcast in high definition into Townsville. To be quite honest with you, I thought digital TV was digital TV; I did not know about standard definition and high definition.

So it came to pass that I plonked myself down towards Malcolm Turnbull's office, I sat down with his staff and I said, 'What is the caper with this thing?' They said what happened was when everybody switched over to digital TV, the government wanted to make sure it was as simple as humanly impossible. So someone in your electorate might have bought a set-top box or someone might have gone out and bought new digital television set. The government wanted to make sure the broadcasts were put through on standard definition so that we all got the picture right from the word go so that there was little as little disruption as humanly possible. Most people, by the time we had actually done the switchover to digital, were able to see the broadcasts. But now we have all got TV sets capable of transmitting high definition. Just the other night in this place, Samsung gave an innovations display. They had their big curved screen high-definition set. Whilst I love my TV, to watch something in that high-definition and to see what TV can actually do, it felt almost like you could step into this picture.

So when Cam came to me and wanted to know what we could do in this space, it was because, with his trained eye, he knew what was capable of being presented, he knew what we were trying to do, he knew what was out there ready to go and he knew we were not getting it.

The Minister for Communications, Malcolm Turnbull, said to me this is the perfect example of red tape reduction that we should be looking at. This is a common-sense move because everyone now has digital TV or if they do not then it is about time that they did, so there would be very few people inconvenienced by this. It means that free-to-air networks and Foxtel will be able to transmit in high definition into our homes. As the member for Hinkler said previously, it is fantastic for watching sport. It is also fantastic for watching films and documentaries and for the kids to watch The Wiggles. That is what it is all about. It is about us not being disadvantaged by being in the regions.

The pressure is now on the free-to-airs, especially with the football finals coming up, to ensure that they are prepared to broadcast in high definition into our regions. In my city of Townsville, 200,000 people want to be able to watch the Cowboys beat the Broncos this weekend.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order!

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order, says the member for Blair. But in Townsville we also want to see the Townsville Blackhawks beat the PNG Hunters in high definition and win the Intrust Super Cup, and to see the Townsville Fire and the Townsville Crocodiles in high definition. We want to see those things, but we also want to see these things go.

This bill amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to allow free-to-air broadcasters to deliver programming on their primary television service in either standard definition or high definition formats; currently, free-to-air broadcasters are required to transmit their primary service in standard definition. This reform arose, as I said, from the review of the digital television framework that was conducted in 2014-15. The proposal received strong support from free-to-air broadcasters and the general public. Of course the general public is going to be right on this, and it will be good if we can get this.

Each free-to-air broadcaster has a specified television service as their primary service for the purpose of meeting the regulatory obligations. These obligations relate to matters such as Australian content, captioning and anti-siphoning. The primary services include Channel Nine, Channel Seven, Channel Ten and the main ABC and SBS television channels, and primary services generally attract higher audiences than multichannels. The requirement for broadcasters to provide their primary service in standard definition was introduced at the start of the digital switchover, over 10 years ago. At that time not all television set-top boxes, as I said, were capable of receiving those.

Does this bill require broadcasters to provide their primary service in high definition? No, it does not. Broadcasters will not be required to broadcast their primary service in high definition; they will have the option of providing the service in standard definition or high definition. So it is up to us, the population in our regional centres, to make sure that we are putting as much pressure as possible on Channel Seven, Channel Nine, Channel Ten and the rest to make sure that they are putting it through on high definition—especially if we can do it for September-October, with the football finals coming up and coming into another cricket season where, hopefully, we will not capitulate in a two-day test again. We will be using a decent cricket ball this time, instead of those dodgy cricket balls that they use in England that are shaped like an egg. But I do not think that is parliamentary.

The reform will provide broadcasters with greater flexibility to make decisions about the types of services they offer in response to consumer demand. Greater access to newer technology is driving consumer expectations that free-to-air broadcasters transmit higher quality content. As we go around the world and as the world gets smaller and smaller, we understand that we want this stuff and we are capable of receiving this stuff in the best possible format that we can have. High-definition content is available to pay TV services such as Foxtel and streaming services such as Netflix. While free-to-air broadcasters provide high-definition content on their multichannels, they are currently prevented from providing their primary channels, which are often the highest rating channels, in high definition.

While I have got us on this topic, I would really like to address the basic issue of this campaign that is going around about 'save our local news services'. When WIN News in Townsville approached me and asked, 'Do you support local journalism and local news services?' my answer was, 'Of course I do.' But, when we have a situation where the two-out-of-three rule, the reach rule and all the things around media reform are in play, I feel some of the executives in the TV stations are in their space for nothing other than self-interest and trying to get the best possible value for their company and that sort of thing—which is what they are paid to do. When I come to speak to the Minister for Communications about my local news services, I do not come at it out of any altruistic goal; I come at it purely out of self-interest. I come at it because it is every bit as important to Townsville that the football from the weekend—Centrals versus the Burdekin, or Herbert River in the grand final next weekend, going up against the Burdekin—is on our news. If we lose our local news, our local sport goes with it. Our local people and our local stories go with it.

When you look at local news on a regional level, you can see it is not just about 'what bleeds leads'—it is not just about fires and road accidents. It is about the texture of our society. I think that is what regional news is all about, and the roles that the journalists and the camera crews and our regional news play in providing that service are so hugely important to the fabric of our society—to be able to get a story up about what our local council is doing, to be able to get a story up about what is happening in a local park, or to get a story up to tell people that it is magpie season and that we have to watch out, because these are the things that matter to our community. If we lose our local TV news then we lose that service, and we are never going to get a run out of Channel Seven on a national news service. We are going to be in a spot where we are being held over a barrel. If we lose it—if WIN TV is going to say, 'We are no longer prepared to run this service'—then I want it to be said that I have done everything I can in that space to make sure that we have done what we can as a parliament to make sure that we can save these services, because they are every bit as important. I see the member for Blair sitting down there. He gets The Queensland Times. The Queensland Times is a great local newspaper, but it carries what is important to Ipswich and its surrounds. The Townsville Bulletin is a great local newspaper; the only problem with it is that it does not do exactly what I ask it to all the time.

The transition that newspapers and print media have had over the years with the divergence of online news and internet and that sort of thing is what TV, including regional TV, is going through right now.

There are massive challenges out there. When you put it up there in relation to the NBN, people say they want NBN purely so they can access Netflix. Is Netflix really a luxury or a necessity? It is a necessity. Have you seen free-to-air television? It is slightly disingenuous but very much a matter of self-interest. When it comes to my local community and what we want out of broadcasting, our newspapers and radio, we want what is local. The highest rating program on our local TV stations is the news. It has always been said if you win your news, you set up your evening's viewing. I do not know what is actually going on in that space.

What we in this place have to be able to do is ensure that every TV station that broadcasts in Townsville is given the opportunity to broadcast its specific programs or its major content in high definition. I would ask that the free-to-air TV stations covering the football finals ensure, as soon as is humanly possible, that we are at least receiving sport and documentaries in high definition. I do not think that is too much to ask.

I applaud the government in removing this red tape. This is now superfluous legislation. I do appreciate the effort of people like Cam Laird, in Townsville, in raising this issue with me and ensuring that I was following it up. When people in Townsville ask us stuff, we as members in this place go to our ministers and leadership and ensure that, if we can do something, we do.

This is a great bit of legislation; it is common sense legislation. I hope that we are able to watch the football finals where North Melbourne will be playing Fremantle for a glorious win by the Shinboners in the AFL and that the Cowboys come through for a maiden premiership this year, all in high definition and all in Townsville! I thank the House.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

September is indeed a cherished month on the Australian sporting calendar.

It marks the commencement of the Rugby League and AFL finals series, a time to gather with friends and family to barrack for your team as they pursue end-of-season glory. Indeed, sometimes it is known as 'white line fever,' which is contagious. Or, in my case, as a Brisbane Lions season ticket holder, to look on enviously at the success of others, although we have still had a pretty good century so far!

We truly are a nation of sports lovers. And the great thing about Australian sport is that the biggest matches of the most popular sports are free and accessible to all on free-to-air television. This is no accident. It is only made possible by Australia's strict antisiphoning laws. These laws protect Australian viewers from pay television broadcasters buying the rights to iconic major sporting events, such as the NRL and AFL grand finals, before free-to-air broadcasters have the opportunity to purchase the rights.

And, importantly in the context of this bill, the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Primary Television Broadcasting Service) Bill 2015, the laws require that any listed events be televised first on the broadcaster's primary service.

Antisiphoning laws are just one small part of a suite of laws that regulate the programming that can be shown on free-to-air television. Other examples include the mandating of Australian content and of a captioning service. These laws exist for a reason and are broadly popular.

As Chair of the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications I can attest that communications technology is evolving at a rapid rate. Two decades ago it would have been inconceivable to access television on a personal computer. A decade ago it would have been inconceivable to access television on a mobile phone. And we are still just beginning to scratch the surface with respect to what can be done to harness this technology.

Regulators and governments do not possess crystal balls. Try as we might, we cannot foresee the future. We can only react to the circumstances of the present. And so, as a natural consequence, we sometimes find ourselves with laws that are rendered obsolete by the progress of technology.

This bill deals with one such example. It removes the requirement for free-to-air broadcasters to provide their primary television service in standard definition. This law once had a valid purpose. It dates from a time when most viewers did not have access to high-definition formats and thus sought to protect those viewers from losing access to free-to-air programming.

These days, high-definition television equipment is commonplace. In his remarks the Minister for Communications noted that, by February 2014, 96 per cent of Australian households had a television or set-top box capable of receiving high-definition content. Clearly, there is no longer a need for primary television services to be broadcast in standard definition.

There are also clear implications for the broadcast of sporting events on free-to-air television. This bill means that, for the first time, sporting events on the antisiphoning list will be able to be shown in high definition.

The benefits of this are twofold. There will be an obvious benefit to viewers who will enjoy better picture quality on the primary service, which is particularly important for sporting contests.

However, for free-to-air broadcasters themselves this is just as important. In a rapidly changing entertainment market, having the choice to broadcast their primary channel on high definition will help them stay relevant and competitive with pay television and, increasingly, with internet-based television providers such as Netflix, Presto and Stan.

This bill removes red tape by liberating free-to-air broadcasters from obsolete restrictions and providing them with increased freedom—freedom to choose to broadcast primary services in high definition or, if they prefer, on standard definition. Other restrictions, such as mandated local content and captioning, are unaffected by this bill.

The timing of this bill is no accident. The government has brought it forward with the express intention of having it passed in time to enable broadcasters to show the NRL and AFL grand finals in high definition on their primary channels.

Whether their teams win, lose or draw on the day, all football fans, including the member for Herbert, will be winners in the long run from this bill, and I commend the bill to the House.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all honourable members for their contributions to this debate. I want to thank the honourable member for Ryan for her contribution. I also want to note the cooperation of the opposition in ensuring that this bill is speedily passed through the House and, indeed, that it will be passed speedily through the other place so that at least there is no legal impediment to the football grand finals being broadcast in high definition. Of course, it is entirely a matter for the broadcasters to do that.

Thanking honourable members for their contributions and recognising the importance of this bill being passed as quickly as possible, I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.