Kelly Hoare (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Like so much else put before this House by the government, the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006 contains a lot of small fiddly details, a few minor changes to existing policy and a glaring lack of useful change to target the things which most need fixing. Labor are not opposed to this bill, for we believe that people living in remote areas should have access to an amount and a variety of television content comparable to those who choose to live in our big cities. We cannot help but agree that any legislation to encourage faster take-up of digital television in this country is a step in the right direction. But this bill does not go anywhere near far enough in addressing the important issues surrounding digital TV, particularly as the government has refused to consider the amendment moved by Senator Conroy in the Senate which sought to address existing restrictions on the content which our two national broadcasters, ABC and SBS, are able to show on their digital channels.

Labor’s amendment would have done away with the current restrictions which prevent our national broadcasters from showing national news, current affairs, drama or comedy programming. In short, these channels are prevented from showing anything that people might actually want to watch and have to resort to screening international news, music content and other throwaway scraps to fill their airtime. Yet Australian taxpayers are paying over $300 million to enable these channels to broadcast digitally. Are they getting their money’s worth? Hardly.

It is to the government’s shame that it refused to accept Senator Conroy’s amendment. Had it been accepted and his proposals implemented, there is no doubt that this would have had a positive effect on the number of Australian households making the switch to digital TV, which is after all our goal here. At present digital TV is in a parlous state. Although the government has stated again and again its commitment to rolling out digital services across the country, we have seen no firm action to bring this about.

Obviously the current plan of action is not working, as evidenced by the fact that at present only about 10 per cent of Australian households have purchased the technology necessary to receive digital TV. That means the overwhelming majority of Australian homes are presently not even capable of receiving digital transmissions let alone worrying about what is being shown on these channels. No wonder Minister Coonan was forced to abandon the government’s original 2008 deadline for switching off analog transmission. If this had happened according to their stated schedule, nearly every home in the country would have been without a television.

What we need is an integrated plan involving incentives for people to convert and upgrade to the new digital technology, along with a relaxation of the current restrictions on digital content so that, when people do make the switch, there is actually something on television that they would want to watch. Otherwise, why would they bother spending the not insignificant amount of money necessary to upgrade?

In other countries, such as the US and the UK, governments have recognised that the take-up of digital television will have an important overall benefit for the country—not least the economic advantage to be gained from the freeing-up of bandwidth—so they have made a financial commitment to help people upgrade to the new digital technology. Similarly, in these countries digital TV offers more than analog, making it a much more appealing option. If the government were really committed to the rollout of digital TV in Australia, they would be wise to follow the example set by the US and UK. At present they are all talk and no action.

This government has already demonstrated its lack of vision and leadership on digital TV programming issues, specifically in relation to Fly TV and ABC Kids, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s youth oriented digital channels. For example, launched in 2001, Fly TV broadcast music, arts, skating and sports content between 6 pm and 6 am daily and was immensely popular with young people who were able to access it. Advertised through the main analog ABC channel, the existence of Fly TV was no doubt instrumental in some parents’ decisions to make the switch to digital, as the channel offered entertaining youth oriented and youth appropriate programming during the timeslots when young people most often watch TV, and without the inappropriate violent and sexual content which often pops up on commercial TV.

Watched by around 300,000 young people per month, Fly TV had the potential to bring young viewers to digital TV and to establish digital TV as a key element of the viewing habits of tomorrow’s adults. Yet in 2003 Fly TV was forced to cease transmission after the government rejected the ABC’s application for an extra $250 million in funding over three years to further develop the digital channel. In short, Fly TV was forced to close because this government, which is allegedly so committed to digital television, was unable to see the benefit of introducing hundreds of thousands of young people to this new technology, unable to look past its ideological mistrust of the ABC and see how they were leading the way in digital TV programming. Well done!

Of course, part of the reason for the government’s continuing support for restrictions on digital television content is that they do not wish to offend or upset the powerful media barons in this country who presently control the commercial market. They do not wish to make Mr Packer, Mr Stokes and, of course, our North American friends CanWest cranky by threatening the vast commercial television empires by allowing competitive broadcasting on digital channels. This desire to placate big business is understandable—after all, with an election coming up next year, the government can hardly afford to have these media gargantuans turned against them. But giving in to the wishes of existing television licence holders at the expense of digital TV’s proper development is just not on. It is not acceptable that the government should hamstring digital TV’s development as it has by refusing to allow digital channels to offer competitive content with analog channels simply to ensure the corporate cronies still love them when the election is finally announced.

It yet again demonstrates the lack of backbone possessed by this government that it has chosen not to stand up to the Packers of this world and, therefore, also not to implement the policy changes which are sorely needed if we are ever to see a full take-up of digital TV. Spinelessness aside, the government should at least be congratulated on taking action to bring broadcasting services in remote areas more in line with the services available in metropolitan areas, as this bill proposes to do. Any action which will increase the quantity and diversity of programming in our most poorly serviced areas will receive the support of Labor.

Country people deserve the same quality of services as anybody else. We particularly support amendment (1), which allows that, where there are only two licensees in a designated remote licence area, one or both of these licensees may broadcast a third digital channel, increasing the diversity of programming. This proposed change has already led to an announcement by Golden West Network and WIN TV that they will launch a joint digital channel in Western Australia in 2007, and we can only hope that more remote licence holders will also choose to take up the third channel option. There are many areas of Tasmania, Queensland and the Northern Territory in particular which would benefit from the availability of a third channel.

Yet again, this bill does not go far enough in addressing the issues at stake. Certainly the changes to remote broadcasting rules may lead to a greater take-up of digital technology in these remote areas, which I suppose is at least a start in getting this technology into more homes throughout the country. But the government should be doing far more. It should be making digital TV the more appealing option by offering incentives to upgrade analog technology and allowing digital broadcasters to offer competitive content with current commercial channels. It should be standing up to the bullying of Australia’s media barons and acknowledging that the success of digital TV, and by extension the advancement of Australia’s technological development, is far more important than its own electoral fortunes, more important than keeping its media-owning mates on side. It should be demonstrating leadership on this issue rather than allowing itself to be led by people who have their own interests at heart and not the country’s.

See this speech in context