Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present a revised explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television Switch-over) Bill 2008 makes amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to enable the government to set a staggered, region by region digital switch-over timetable for the transition to digital-only television.

It implements the government’s policy to achieve digital switch-over by the end of 2013.

The switch-over to digital-only television represents the most fundamental change in broadcasting in Australia since analog television began over 50 years ago.

Digital television provides benefits to viewers including additional channels, and improved picture and sound quality.

The spectrum made available by switching off analog television, known as the digital dividend, has the potential to be used for a wide range of new wireless services.

A firm timetable to implement switch-over will provide certainty for customers and industry in the transition to digital.

This bill provides the mechanism for the government to set a final switch-over timetable which will conclude by 31 December 2013.

At present, switch-over dates are set in relation to television broadcasting licence areas, by setting the so-called ‘simulcast period’ for the simultaneous transmission of analog and digital signals within a licence area.

At the end of the simulcast period, analog transmissions would cease while digital transmissions will continue.

The simulcast period is currently set to end on 31 December 2009 in metropolitan areas, and 31 March or 31 December 2011 in non-remote regional areas, depending on the licence area.

The simulcast period for a licence area can be extended by regulation, but not shortened.

It is widely accepted that these dates are not appropriate for a smooth transition to digital-only television.

The bill allows the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy to determine by legislative instrument local market areas for switch-over, and switch-over dates for those markets.

Similarly, the minister can determine the switch-over date for a television licence area by setting the simulcast period for that area.

This will mean that, if appropriate, some areas could switch off analog earlier than currently permitted.

It also allows geographical areas smaller than television licence areas to be the basis of a switch-over timetable.

This will allow the government’s switch-over program to better reflect local market conditions and circumstances.

The bill also provides for switch-over dates for a particular area to be varied by up to three months before or after the date originally determined by the minister.

This will allow the government to identify a six-month window for switch-over in a particular local market or licence area, and for the switch-over dates to be finessed in response to local issues as they arise.

In exceptional circumstances the switch-over date may be extended beyond the six-month window for a particular area:

• where there are significant technical or engineering reasons; and
• where those circumstances could not have reasonably been foreseen six months before the determined date by one or more of the broadcasters in that area.

The bill requires that all regions must have switched over by 31 December 2013.

Amendments to the bill passed by the Senate require minimum analog switch-off readiness criteria to be determined by the minister and that the switch-over readiness of local market areas be assessed against these criteria.

These provisions have the potential to delay the government’s timetable for digital television switch-over by the end of 2013 through the possibility of switch-over being deferred if arbitrary readiness criteria are not met.

A firm switch-over timetable is important to give certainty to industry and customers.

This has been the overwhelming experience in overseas countries that have already switched, or are in the process of switching, to digital.

These items, as they stand, will be damaging to switch-over. The government intends to move amendments to the bill to remove these items.

Amendments passed by the Senate also require the minister to tender a quarterly report on digital transmission issues to each house of parliament.

The government does not accept these amendments and will introduce its own amendments and address those of the opposition in consideration in detail.

The switch-over to digital is important to Australia.

It will not only introduce new channels for viewers but also free up valuable spectrum. This freed-up spectrum will allow for new communications services to be introduced in Australia.

It is important, therefore, we get this right and that the bill ensures the smooth introduction of digital television into Australia for all Australians.

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

by leave—I rise tonight to support the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television Switch-over) Bill 2008, a better bill than it was when it was introduced by the government in the Senate. The amendments and enhancements that the Senate has introduced into this bill deserve the support of the government. I feel sorry for my friend and colleague who had to read the second reading speech being fitted up with an explanation of what was wrong with the bill. It was actually content free, a matter of: ‘We just don’t like the Senate’s amendments and will move our own.’ So I will listen with interest to what the argument is, and I understand that he has been put in a situation by circumstance, and I admire that.

What we are here tonight discussing is a better Broadcasting Amendment (Digital Television Switch-over) Bill 2008 than the one that the government introduced into the Senate. The bill is embracing a number of practical, common-sense and constructive improvements that the Senate has embraced and that we urge the government to embrace. Something that is very clear is that for a switch-off of analog TV and a switch-over to digital we require a minister that is switched on. I am fearful that we do not actually have one of those; otherwise, I am sure that the minister would see the value and the virtue of the amendments introduced by the Senate, which the opposition supports quite vigorously.

The bill also amends the timing of two reviews which are required under the Broadcasting Services Act. Schedule 1 of the bill amends the timing of two statutory reviews required under the Broadcasting Services Act to reflect Labor’s new timetable. Schedule 2 of the bill provides for a phased, region-by-region analog signal switch-off for a full transition to digital television in Australia with an end date of 2013, and the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has produced a time frame of region-by-region six-month windows within which that switch-off will be available. The bill itself does not actually set the switch-over dates for the region, so you can imagine the opposition’s surprise when its amendments were said to be impeding the switch-off in some way. The bill does not actually address specific switch-off dates, but it does provide a mechanism whereby the minister can determine switch-over dates within that six-month window I referred to and within that period. There is also scope for the minister in this amendment to take into account exceptional circumstances to move away from the six-month window that is designated in the schedule that he has produced, so clearly there is some wiggle room there. What we are less clear on is what those exceptional circumstances are.

This brings us to the heart of the coalition’s amendments. What we do know is that shortly after the election of the Rudd government an enthusiastic and energetic new minister—after some time in opposition making all sorts of allegations, many of which have been proven to be completely unsubstantiated—came out and made a big call. He made the call to nominate an end date for the transition from analog television to digital. What was worrying about it was that, to make such a call, you would have thought the minister would have taken into account key input that actually helped him formulate that end date. You would have thought that the minister would have taken some advice on how the transition was going, on how the coordinated and systematic efforts of the former government were progressing and on what impediments lay between where we were at the time of the election of the Rudd government and the ultimate goal. But, no, he just came out in June 2008 and made the statement that the government had a deadline—and that was it. It was a political chest-beating exercise. It was recognised as that at the time and it overlooked a number of the very real and genuine issues that need to be addressed if we are to see a successful transition from analog to digital.

The coalition’s amendments—the ones that have been embraced by the Senate, the elements that are in this bill that we are debating—seek to address some of the shortcomings of the minister’s approach. It is interesting that, when we ask about how decisions will be made about switch-over, we get the same answer we got from Labor when they turned off analog telephones—they simply turned them off. We get the same answer as when Labor turned off the CDMA network—they simply turned it off. What we do not ever get is an explanation, a public disclosure or an objective assessment of whether the time is right and the circumstances accommodate such a switch-off. I was thinking about what this meant, and I have come to the conclusion that Minister Conroy is actually a WIJI—he is in ‘well, it just is’ mode. Whenever a big public policy decision needs to be discussed, he goes into a witness protection program and will not actually engage in the debate. We have seen that this evening, just minutes ago, when in introducing this enhanced bill into the parliament Labor indicated that they are going to fight and seek to remove the provisions that the Senate has included. They are good provisions with practical, common-sense, constructive improvements, and Labor are going to oppose them. Why? There is no explanation. They are just going to oppose them because it was not in the original bill.

The original bill, though, really just provides that framework that I touched on. What is does not do is give viewers the confidence that decisions to turn off analog television signals will be made in an informed, considered and objective manner. What the opposition sought to do successfully in the Senate through the good work of the shadow minister, Senator Nick Minchin, was to enhance the bill by requiring that the minister turn his mind to minimum analog switch-off readiness criteria. What is the public policy argument for opposing something as thoughtful as that? How can the government possibly oppose having some readiness criteria upon which it is justified and credible to switch off the analog television signal? How can the government possibly oppose the requirement that the Senate has introduced into this bill that those minimum switch-off readiness criteria actually be articulated? What is the public policy argument? There is none. This is where we go back to WIJI. We had the dodgy with Senator Conroy’s broadband tender process, and now we have the WIJI: ‘Well, it just is.’

What we are asked to wear here, under the government’s intention to fillet out this very sensible amendment, is some framework that allows Senator Conroy and the rest of the Rudd government to turn off analog television on the basis that it just is time to turn it off. This is not the way to handle what, for the vast majority of Australians, is one of their primary entertainment and information sources. This is not like a telephone signal that might not be so flash on one part of your property or in one area that you might commute to. This is about no television for people who are in a position to receive digital television. We have a government not even wanting to address the simple requirement of articulating some criteria against which a decision to shut off analog television will be made. This is outrageous. This is a minister drunk on power, used to having the sound bites, but with no sound public policy to back up his actions and his statements. This is another example of that.

The amendments from the opposition actually save Senator Conroy from himself. They actually give him the discipline to turn his mind to objective criteria against which the decision will be made on a profoundly significant action that could have very significant impacts on viewers—simply turning off analog television. That is not about having a bad signal. It is not about maybe losing a channel. It is not about having television that is maybe not so crisp and clear when there is a bad weather event. This is about having nothing at all. So you would have thought that a simple requirement for the minister to articulate minimum analog switch-off readiness criteria was not too much to ask for. But the government are going to oppose that. This is outrageous. All those who are listening to this broadcast, and are perhaps even interested in viewing it from time to time, might find that there is no TV because the minister has unilaterally decided to switch off the analog television signal.

Labor has form on this. It just switched off the analog phone network. It was on the basis of asking, ‘Is now the right time, is this the right thing to do?’ and we got the WIJI answer—‘Well, it just is.’ Then, with CDMA, the opposition was saying: ‘Make it clear that no-one is disadvantaged by this action. If it is genuinely like-for-like coverage, why hide behind the need to publicly disclose whether like-for-like coverage exists?’ No, it would not have that either; it would not have a bar of it. It had some process that only the minister was open to and able to engage with. No-one in the public policy area, none of those using that service and no-one with expertise in this area was able to get anywhere near that decision. And here it is again—another attempt by the Rudd government and the Labor Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy, to avoid any sense of objective decision-making criteria. This is what we are up against here.

That is the first of the amendments—so frightening, so terrifying that Labor is going to oppose them. The second of the amendments in this bill, approved and endorsed by the Senate, takes into account the process and the need to report against the readiness criteria not less than six months before the analog television signal is cut off. What the opposition, and now the Senate, is asking the government and this House to consider are credible readiness, specific, measurable evaluation criteria—they should be defined—and then a process for reviewing actual activity in progress on the ground against those criteria and reporting on that publicly so people can actually see whether a community under this staged shutdown of analog television is in a position to benefit from digital services.

Again, what is the mischief, where is the villain and what is the public policy argument to reject a perfectly reasonable suggestion like that? There is no argument. It is common sense, it is constructive and practical. No, the minister does not want to turn his mind to publicly accounting for the basis on which he has arrived at a decision to shut off the analog network because he relies on the WIJI—‘Well, it just is.’ That is what he wants to be able to say: ‘We have shut off analog television to this whole region. On what basis? Well, it just is. It’s time to shut it off.’ So that is the second amendment.

It requires the government, through the minister, to turn its mind, the resources of the department and of ACMA to establishing what the readiness is on the ground in a region and reporting on it not less than six months before that shut-off to make sure that everybody knows whether the minimum analog switch-off readiness criteria have been addressed and, if not, what the legitimate likelihood is of meeting the criteria and what action may be taken. It takes account of whether the transmission of the service is on the same level of coverage and potential reception quality as the analog service—perfectly reasonable, I would have thought—and whether people are able to at least avail themselves of like-to-like transmission. Then it talks about the reception. Are households which receive free-to-air television coverage in analog mode able to receive the same level of coverage after switch-off through digital services? That is perfectly reasonable.

In your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker, wouldn’t your community want to know that when the analog service is shut off they have something else in its place of at least equivalent service quality? It is not unreasonable, I would have thought. Have the measures been taken for household readiness so that households are actually ready to view the new service? Do they understand digital television and what is involved with preparing their sets, whether it be the acquisition of new technology or set-top boxes or something of that kind? Is their household, as viewers, in a state of readiness to receive that service? No, apparently that is evil as well. Apparently, the government is going to refuse to disclose how the transition and preparation for digital is going before it shuts off analog services. What must it be thinking to say that this is somehow inappropriate? What possibly could be the justification? We have not heard any justification. It has just said, ‘We do not want to do it.’ That is the attitude of the Rudd Labor government.

The third amendment that the opposition has put forward which the Senate has embraced deals with the question of transmission black spots. It deals with the fact that there is more to the transmission of a television service than the huge transmission towers you might see in major population centres. The coalition knows that—the National Party made sure we did. When the coalition was elected in 1996 I remember the television black spots program. I remember people vigorously pursuing opportunities through the program, right across the vast continent, both the north island the mainland and the south island of Tasmania, to try and get the transmission and retransmission infrastructure upgraded so they could get a reasonable level of analog television services. Right now there are 1,100 transmission and retransmission devices other than those huge ones you see in major population centres. Many of those have been supported by the former coalition government. Many of those have been supported by municipal councils, community organisations, groups of concerned citizens and individuals to make sure they can get a television service.

The government at no stage has articulated an idea of how it is going to go about addressing those 1,100 transmission and retransmission devices. That is why this third amendment is so important. Where there is a need on a quarterly basis for both houses of parliament to be presented with a report on just how those black spot identification and rectification processes are going, we need to make sure there is at least standard definition television in digital mode available in areas at the same level of coverage and potential reception as those under analog. This discussion about black spots seems to have gone into the Rudd government’s black hole. We have not heard how it plans to tackle this issue when we understand that this is a matter of grave concern for all those who have participated in the coalition’s black spot program.

But this is just this particular bill. This is a better bill than it was when it came into the Senate because of those three amendments. This is a bill that seeks to carry forward some of the digital transition preparations put in place by the previous coalition government. This is about amending the legislative framework the coalition put in place. This is about making sure that communities are not left with no television service whatsoever. These are amendments that are perfectly reasonable to make sure that levels of service are publicly known, identified and clear when the government—through the minister—is making decisions about shutting them off.

We talked about the need for a digital action plan, and that was implemented by the coalition. It put in place a number of initiatives to drive the take-up of digital technology, to educate consumers on what it meant and to in turn foster, enhance and drive the rate of digital take-up in Australian homes. Digital technology has been recognised around the world as opening up a whole new world of delicious opportunities. It was Galperin in his piece about the transition to digital TV in the US and Britain who wrote of the transition to digital television as a:

… transition from a world of spectrum scarcity, dumb terminals, and one-way services, to a world of on-demand programming, intelligent terminals, and abundant channels …

What we do not have is an intelligent minister able to take up the offer that has been put before us. We have a bill that has been improved by the Senate. I seek leave to continue my remarks once we have had the opportunity to consider more wisdom from the Senate.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.