Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I have nothing against Ramsay Street, but I was just pointing out to the Acting Deputy President that he may not notice the difference when he is watching Neighbourstonight, as I am sure he probably does!

While the free-to-air broadcasters provide high definition on their multichannels and they are restricted or prevented from providing it on their primary channels, it means that they are actually prevented from using high-definition TV on what are usually their highest-rating programs. It does seem quite crazy that the best possible technologies we have available for presentation of our media are denied to the channels that actually have the greatest audience. The whole process of this has been worked through over the last 10 years, and we now see that this particular piece of regulation is obsolete.

There is an expectation by the public that they will be able to get high definition, and it is the live sporting events that are the current topic of great discussion. They were probably the catalyst for this particular piece of legislation coming up for debate, seeking to change this regulation. We now have such a expectation of high-definition content that we do need to ensure that when the football finals come around in a couple of weeks' time that we are able to provide the highest-quality content for those. So it is imperative that we get this bill passed through this place so that the majority of Australians who are going to sit down with a nice cold beer, a glass of wine or a glass of Coke and watch the football finals will be able to do so with the highest-quality content possible.

How many viewers have access to high-definition television? As I said, about 96 per cent were found to have access to high-definition television over 18 months ago. Given the fact that many people are likely to have changed over their old televisions in the intervening period, one would expect that that is getting closer to the 100 per cent mark. There will always be a few people who will not have access to high-definition capability on their televisions, but certainly the majority of Australians will. Unfortunately, in many instances, you can only govern for the majority but, given that the overwhelming majority is getting up to 97, 98 or 99 per cent of the population, it seems like a reasonable thing that we now seek to rectify this anomaly in the system that says we have to have the worst-definition television on our primary channels when we otherwise have access to high-definition. The time has come, now that the digital transformation has taken place.

How can viewers who currently do not have access to high-definition TV get access to high-definition services? Viewers can receive high-definition channels using high-definition-capability compatible TVs or set-top boxes. The cost of a high-definition set-top box is relatively low. If somebody is listening to this particular debate and does not have access to high-definition television, for the very small cost of $40 or $50 they would be able to get a set-top box to access high-definition television and therefore, subject to the successful passage of this particular bill through the Senate today, get access to the football finals in high definition, should that be the will of this chamber.

One of the other questions that has come up is whether the amendments will affect the provision of captioning services on the primary television channel. We saw in a recent inquiry how terribly important captioning services are, particularly for our hearing-impaired population. This will not have any impact on that. Captioning services on the primary service will continue to exist, and the primary services are the key mechanism for meeting the captioning requirements. This will not change at all with the introduction of this bill.

People with disabilities will also be able to access broadcast to primary services if they are provided in high definition. The equipment can now be found in almost every Australian home. If you are without the compatible equipment, you can easily get access to it. As I said, given the high use by hearing-impaired people—particularly for the use of television services—I would be quite surprised if there were terribly many people who had a hearing impairment who were not able to access high definition. Certainly, if they could not, it is a reasonably easy fix for them to get access to it.

Why are the amendments regarding the Viewer Access Satellite Television service required? The amendments contained in this bill are minor, technical amendments which are required for the transmission of the primary services by free-to-air satellite broadcasters such as VAST. VAST providers broadcast services sourced from terrestrial broadcasters. These services include the primary service transmitted by the terrestrial broadcaster. This additional amendment makes some amendments to the technicalities that sit behind the provision of primary services via the free-to-air satellite broadcasters and will allow the terrestrial broadcasters to provide their primary services in high definition. It also allows the satellite broadcasters to transmit those particular services in high definition.

These minor amendments are required for the transmission of local news programs by free-to-air satellite broadcasters. Regional commercial television broadcasters must provide local news programming to a satellite broadcaster. At present, those programs must be broadcast on satellite using standard definition format. Obviously, we need to make sure that the changes that we are making more broadly, in the sense of allowing high-definition broadcasting format, are also extended to the satellite services that are subsidiary to that but which are very important to people who live in rural and regional areas. One thing that we always need to be mindful of is that whilst the majority of people in Australia live in our metropolitan areas, these sorts of services are equally important and relied upon, if not more so, in our country areas. It will ensure that our satellite broadcasters also have the capacity to access the opportunity to broadcast in high definition equally available to them. It is possible that a regional broadcaster may choose to broadcast their news in high definition, but equally they have the same capacity as the main broadcasters: if they choose to remain on standard definition then they are entitled to do so.

To reflect the change in terms of the satellite change, the bill makes consequential amendments to allow the satellite broadcaster to broadcast local news programs on one or more of its standard definition channels in high definition. Once again, it gives greater flexibility to the satellite broadcaster regarding the format that it can use to transmit its local news programs—which, as I said, are so terribly important in our rural, regional and remote communities around Australia.

The bill does not effect the anti-siphoning scheme and it will not alter the current applications of the anti-siphoning scheme. So consequential amendments to the scheme will be required as a result of these amendments, to allow free-to-air broadcasters to transmit their primary service in standard definition or high definition. These consequential amendments will ensure that the current rules continue to apply in the event of broadcasters electing to change their primary service from standard definition to high definition. The bill equally will have no effect on the negotiation of sports rights, so neither the primary nor the consequential amendments of the bill will affect negotiations for sports rights. The negotiation of sports rights will continue to be a commercial arrangement between the broadcaster and the relevant sporting body. As we can see, this is a bill that just seeks to rectify some things that occur simply through the passing of time.