John Murphy (Lowe, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006 deals with relatively minor though important changes to broadcasting services legislation for those living in remote service areas. In short, this bill amends the Broadcasting Services Act and Radiocommunications Act to allow commercial television licensees in remote areas to multichannel if they jointly or individually elect to provide a third commercial television service. The bill will also provide these licensees with an exemption from HDTV quotas that apply to commercial broadcasters in non-remote licence areas. I am pleased to see the government retreat, albeit only in remote areas, from the onerous and expensive requirement to mandate HDTV. The decision to compel commercial broadcasters to meet a 20 hours per week quota of high-definition television must surely be seen as a flawed decision.

As members before me have mentioned, Australia stands as the only country that has attempted to compel its consumers to make the transition to this expensive form of digital broadcasting. High-definition broadcasting is inordinately expensive for broadcasters and consumers. The cost of high-definition equipment to consumers is three times the cost of standard-definition equipment, making it a technology that is out of reach for the vast majority of consumers today and—most likely—in the future. Most other nations have had the good sense to allow consumers to decide which technology should ultimately hold sway, rather than mandating a particular preference. Given that this bill shows a minor retreat from the government’s usual approach of mandating HDTV, one might have thought Australia was taking baby steps forward, but steps forward nonetheless, to join most other nations on this issue.

However, in what is symbolic of this government’s incoherent approach to digital technology, the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006, which was debated in this House last week, proposes to allow commercial broadcasters to multichannel solely in high definition until 2009 for reasons known only to the minister. Standard-definition multichannelling restrictions continue to remain in place. The decision makes absolutely no sense, but then not many of the government’s decisions on media reform do. Rather, the Howard government’s approach to digital television policy and media policy broadly is incoherent and full of contradictions and fails ordinary Australian consumers because it puts the media proprietors first. The question is: why?

Debate on this bill is timely. It solicits remarks on the approach taken to media reform by the Howard government and it solicits comments on the changes we are likely to see in parts of the media sector. In the minister’s second reading speech on this bill, we were again witness to the minister’s protestations that the government is working hard to ensure the smooth transition to and the smooth introduction of digital television to Australia. The minister protests that the government is committed to ensuring all Australian consumers have access to the exciting new services that digital technology will bring to our homes and that the government’s message about the exciting new world of digital television is being heard. That only around 20 per cent of Australian households have purchased the necessary equipment to receive digital free-to-air broadcasts speaks volumes. While the minister believes the government’s message is being heard, clearly the message is not being accepted by ordinary Australians. Despite the government’s attempts to stimulate the sluggish demand for digital television, including the amendments in this bill, we are all entitled to doubt whether we will see acceleration in the conversion rate to digital technology. Our doubts are reasonable given the way the Howard government has approached digital broadcasting policy, ‘in it for the consumers’. What a load of humbug and cant! This minister mocks our intelligence. That is what she said; ‘in it for the consumers’!

If the minister is truly in it for the consumers, obviously she has not read the submissions made to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Information Technology and the Arts inquiry into the uptake of digital television. Why hasn’t the minister referred to a submission from John White that Australians are not taking up digital television because people do not perceive additional benefits such as multichannelling? Why hasn’t the minister referred to the submissions from Steve Ulrich and Paul Macknamara that digital television does not offer enough additional programming or content to provide incentives for consumers to upgrade? ‘In it for the consumers’ is one of the most absurd and disingenuous statements ever to come out of the minister’s mouth.

In light of the announcement that the government’s cross-media ownership laws were being watered down, we have seen media shares rise in value. I can assure members that it is no coincidence that shares in publicly traded media have risen in value.

See this speech in context