Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Sustainable Development and Cities) Share this | Hansard source

They need cash. Because of their spirit and enthusiasm, you get a rich diversity of programming on 3RPP, as you do from other community broadcasters with niche programming and volunteer presenters. In our own community, Work for the Dole participants get involved with the on-air broadcast, with the preproduction and with the research to see whether a role in the media is a career opportunity for them. This is another example of what community broadcasting brings to the table.

The evidence is compelling, the words are reassuring—but the action? Well, we have not peaked early in terms of the cash that is available. I am hopeful that it will come forward. But it is not just the cash. It is not just a sincere and genuine opportunity for the government to give effect to the words that were in the parliamentary secretary’s second reading speech. It is also a chance to remove the confusion and uncertainty about what the future holds, a chance for the community radio sector to have their passion, enthusiasm and efforts as volunteers supported by the government and for it to give encouragement, not discouragement, to their efforts.

That leads me to one other area, though. Sometimes it is not just about cash; it is not just about hardware. It is about a valuable resource the nation has that you cannot quite see—that is, the spectrum. The spectrum is very important. If we are going to see a transition in the technology of the broadcast format, that is one thing. But if there is also going to be a redistribution of spectrum, then that is another challenge. I read with great interest the concern of the Community Broadcasting Association of Australia. The article says they were:

… furious about the proposal to move several community radio stations to lower powered frequencies.

ACMA has a difficult job in planning for the use and availability of spectrum across our continent. I have spoken before about digital television and how it is going to be a big challenge to get the spectrum right where outer metropolitan areas are butting into regional broadcast zones and getting muddy overlap on spectrum—but that is for television; that is for another day.

In radio, similar challenges are being addressed. In area planning exercises for spectrum there is a sense that maybe ACMA is not taking community radio seriously enough, that they are a soft touch and easily manoeuvrable in those spectrum hierarchies—and they are not happy about it. The Community Broadcasting Association are ‘furious’, to quote that recent media report. They point to that fury and justify it by looking at some examples involving the licence areas of Geelong, Bendigo and Colac, in the great state of Victoria, and Townsville, in Queensland, licence areas where, as I understand it, with the virtuous motive of trying to provide some continuity for the frequency that ABC services and others may have, where they have a broader national reach, the more localised community broadcasters are getting moved around.

I have touched on the audience and take-up of community radio. I have touched on the challenges they face. But imagine the surprise of a listener on hearing that a community radio station has assembled the resources to make the digital conversion and then they are not actually where they thought they were on the dial. That is a challenge that community radio is facing, and the Community Broadcasting Association of Australia are very unhappy. They are very unhappy about the haste with which the consultation has been carried out. Bear in mind that these community broadcasters are not cashed up with people who can immediately swing into engaging with the regulator on important technical issues. These are people whose volunteer time is what shapes the governance of those stations and is from where they need to draw the resources to respond to proposals to revise licence area plans that have a very profound impact on their spot on the dial.

The Community Broadcasting Association have outlined a few key issues, and I think there is some justification in their concern. Time is important for a not-for-profit community organisation to respond to the significant work of this kind. Again, I recognise that ACMA is inspired by the best possible motives, but the little guys are feeling like they are being pushed around, not getting a chance to respond in short time periods and also wondering what happens next. If they are forced to surrender higher powered frequency for what they believe is markedly lower powered frequency, what does that do to their listening audience? What does that do to the growing audience that is listening to community radio? If they are forced to surrender their spot and the power of their licence reach and the like, what do they do to compensate for that? Is there some assurance—and I think there should be—that when these changes take place there will be a like-for-like outcome? If there is a listening audience and a transmission power that gives you a certain reach, if you are going to be shifted around as part of a licence area planning exercise you should at least come out of it about where you were when you started. I do not think that is an unreasonable request and I hope ACMA, in recognising, and the minister, in promoting, the virtue of community radio take a similar approach to that problem.

The other thing too is that if you are going to move people around, how about helping with that adjustment, that transition. The community broadcasters association have recognised that there is a cost for technical and other resources to facilitate the frequency change—a cost not instigated by them but instigated by the review—that should be covered. There is a rebranding exercise that is needed to make sure that that 27 per cent of the listening audience, the more than 4½ million listeners, can actually find the community radio station that they have grown quite close to and that they have affection for. For that task of rebranding and then communicating that to their audience, you would have thought some partnership advertising within that audience market through other media channels is something that would be part of the transition. If in the national interest there is some change to their broadcast arrangements, the national interest should facilitate a continuity of their work and an opportunity not to lose the audience that they have worked hard to secure.

There is also of course a human resource cost in making sure that the station continues to operate. This is an upheaval. Again, I am not in any way doubting the merit of the need to get the licence area planning exercise done properly, and I do not have a problem with the virtue of broader national broadcasters having some seamless continuity on the frequencies that they are operating on. But I do not think that bouncing a community radio station on to a lower power frequency without fully exploring the other options, without recognising that they are genuine partners and that the relationship should be adult-to-adult and not parent-to-child—coming in decreeing to the little guy that they have to rack off and go somewhere else on a different power frequency—is the way we should be doing business with 25 per cent of the listening audience in a community broadcasting platform that is inspired by the diversity and the local interests of their community, giving them a chance to put something different out there that is clearly responding to the listeners’ interests.

With those comments, I note that the opposition is supportive of these measures. The funding certainty is something that the community broadcasting sector is crying out for. We are looking for some tangible action on the seriousness with which community broadcasting is embraced by the government. In terms of these worrying examples where for the national interest a licence area process may see some unwelcome adjustments for community broadcasters, they should at least end up with a like-for-like outcome and not be pushed around recklessly. Some support to bring about that change would seem a perfectly reasonable thing to give to the committed, very dedicated, selfless volunteers who run community radio stations around our country.

See this speech in context