Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on behalf of the coalition in relation to the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television Switch-over) Bill 2008. This bill sets in place the mechanisms to complete the transition to digital TV in Australia. The coalition has a very firm commitment to supporting the transition to digital television. In government, it was the coalition that commenced the process to transition Australia to digital. In the year 2000, the coalition provided the legislative framework for the introduction of digital television, with digital transmission commencing in metropolitan licence areas on 1 January 2001, nearly eight years ago, and in non-remote regional areas from 2003. The initial legislation permitted a simulcast period of at least eight years. The current legislated switch-over is designed to coincide with the end of the analog digital simulcast period.

In government, the coalition was always concerned about take-up rates before switch-over and conscious of the need to ensure consumer awareness of the benefits of digital television. In July 2006, we announced that there was insufficient digital take-up to meet the initial switch-over date in metropolitan areas. Subsequently, we established a Digital Action Plan to drive take-up and achieve switch-over with a revised target of 2010 to 2012. In November 2006, my colleague Senator Helen Coonan, as Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, announced the creation of Digital Australia to coordinate the transition to digital TV.

The Labor Party went to the 2007 federal election promising to abolish Digital Australia but, of course, has merely rebranded it as the Digital Switchover Taskforce, retaining similar functions to the previous body and retaining the executive director appointed by our government, Mr Andrew Townend. Given our leadership of the move to digital TV, the coalition naturally support the intent of the digital television switch-over bill. However, in stating our support, it is important to say that we do have some concerns about the end of the simulcast period and want the government to ensure that no current analog free-to-air TV viewer is left without a digital signal.

This bill allows the government to implement the minister’s digital switch-over time line. I deliberately referred to it as the ‘minister’s time line’ because in December last year, upon their election, the minister, Senator Conroy, determined a date for final switch-over in Australia of 31 December 2013. The minister then set about planning how this could be achieved, and it is only recently that we have seen any detail about how he plans to achieve this ambitious timetable.

The bill provides the mechanism for the minister’s timetable to be achieved, commencing with Mildura in the six-month window from 1 January to 30 June 2010. So, while the bill itself does not contain this timetable, the preferred timetable has been released, indicating the government’s preference to end simulcast region by region, and in regional and rural Australia before the metropolitan areas. From the coalition’s point of view, we do understand the rationale for that particular approach of doing it in regional and rural Australia prior to metropolitan areas, but I say to the government that this process is going to have to be managed extremely carefully to ensure that people in rural and regional Australia—in particular—do not feel they are the government’s guinea pigs for this transition to digital TV.

We note from the most recent study by ACMA into digital take-up in Australia that there have been significant improvements in take-up since we, as the former government, launched our Digital Action Plan, but there are still a number of concerns with take-up, and with viewer understanding of the end of the simulcast period, that do need to be addressed. ACMA’s report Digital television in Australian homes 2007 found a 12.2 per cent increase in the number of households—to around 41.8 per cent over the 18 months since the last survey—receiving digital free-to-air television. This is a significant increase. And the report does confirm that Mildura, the first area for switch-over under the government’s timetable, does have the highest digital TV adoption rate, at 73.3 per cent, largely driven by the availability of an additional commercial broadcasting service in digital.

This bill has been considered by the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts and I, on behalf of the coalition, thank the committee and its secretariat for their work throughout the inquiry. One of the key areas of concern raised in the committee’s inquiry was what the government considers to be an adequate level of take-up before switch-over can occur. The bill, regrettably, does not include any readiness criteria as preconditions for switch-over. There is no requirement on the government or the minister that an area is publicly identified as ‘ready’ in advance of the specified switch-over period. The coalition is concerned about switch-over occurring before regions are deemed to be appropriately ready, particularly given that there has been no commitment by the government as yet to ensure that take-up is at an adequate level and that transmission problems such as black spots are addressed prior to switch-over in any particular region. The coalition is attracted to the suggestion submitted by Free TV, an organisation representing all the free-to-air broadcasters in this country, to the committee’s inquiry. In her evidence to the committee inquiry, the Free TV CEO, Julie Flynn, argued for amendments to the bill to require benchmark readiness criteria for switch-over and a review of switch-over readiness against that benchmark for each region six months from commencement. The readiness criteria would be set by the minister and would be required to be made public, and the results of the review into readiness would also be required to be made public. We, on our side, support the arguments put forward by Free TV, and I therefore foreshadow that the coalition will be moving several amendments to this bill to ensure better protection for viewers as the analog signal is switched off.

The coalition do acknowledge the cost burden of the simulcast period, particularly on rural and regional broadcasters—one of the good reasons for switching over in the regions first—and do not want to unduly stand in the way of switch-over, but we do want to make sure that adequate consideration is given to the people who really count, the viewers, and to their readiness to receive digital signals. Further, of particular concern to the coalition is the possibility of transmission black spots. The coalition wants transmission difficulties to be given more attention by the government before switch-over. Indeed, I have been contacted by one gentleman, Mr Inall, who wished to highlight the problems he is experiencing with receiving a digital signal. After spending $1,000 on a set-top box and upgrades to his external aerial, he is still unable to receive the ABC free-to-air signal and continues to rely on the analog signal for viewing the ABC. And, amazingly, Mr Inall lives only five kilometres from the transmission site in Roseville in New South Wales. So that is one of the reasons why the coalition will be moving an amendment that requires the government to table information about the identification of black spots and how these will be rectified in advance of switch-over.

As for the government’s switch-over timetable itself, we again stress that, as many regional centres will be the first to switch over, there does need to be publicly available information about their readiness, and a guarantee that transmission difficulties have been rectified. The government argue that a concrete analog switch-over date will drive the take-up of digital TV—or set-top boxes—and that argument has, of course, some considerable merit. But the government have not specified what they would do if take-up rates were not deemed by anybody to be adequate, nor have they defined a desired take-up rate. The government continue to cite the UK example in that country’s progress towards switch-over, but we do need to be conscious of the difference—naturally—in the geographical size of the two countries and that it is regional centres that will, of course, be moving to switch over in the first phase.

In relation to schedule 1 of this bill, the coalition do not oppose the change in the timing of the two reviews required under the Broadcasting Services Act, noting that the policy intent of these reviews is consistent with our previous policy in government. But I do place on record a couple of the coalition’s concerns with these reviews. In relation to the review of new commercial broadcasting licences, this bill amends section 35A(1) of the Broadcasting Services Act to require the minister to cause the review to be conducted prior to 1 January 2012. Spectrum allocation, as part of the digital dividend, is becoming more and more important, and yet we know it is fraught with difficulty. Even ACMA’s own Five-year spectrum outlook 2009-2014 has acknowledged an inherent degree of uncertainty in predicting spectrum requirements over the next five years.

I believe there is some merit in tying consideration of this review into new commercial licences to the consideration of the so-called digital dividend spectrum allocation—a point raised in the Free TV submission. May I also say, however, that it is difficult to envisage, from my point of view, any circumstances which would warrant the creation of a fourth commercial TV licence, given the increasingly competitive TV broadcasting industry and, of course, the advent of multichannelling with digital TV. In relation to the content and captioning rules of commercial multichannels, the coalition does note the point made by the department in its submission that ‘different regulatory requirements for content and captioning may operate in different parts of the country’ due to the staggered dates of analog switch-off.

The coalition does not want broadcasters, particularly regional broadcasters, to face unnecessary regulatory or cost burdens due to the staggered regional switch-over and, given the potential variance of requirements for broadcasters in different regions, asks that the government listens to the concerns raised about the multichannel content and captioning requirements. The coalition wants the government to ensure that everyone who currently has access to an analog signal will have access to digital signals at the time of the switch-over in that area. The government has stated that a number of assistance measures for consumers and for transmission infrastructure are under consideration, but to have any chance of meeting the minister’s deadline for the switch-over the government will need to provide funding in next year’s budget to ensure switch-over readiness.

We do believe that it is important for the government to provide assistance to ensure adequate preparation for the switch-over. This should include subsidies to assist the disadvantaged in making the switch and funding for digital towers and equipment upgrades, including, most importantly, the self-help retransmission sites as well as black spot elimination initiatives. The government should have in place a strategy to enable community broadcasters to successfully switch to digital. The government needs to provide funding certainty for consumers and broadcasters to facilitate the switch-over in advance of the Mildura switch-over period, which is the first to occur. The coalition, while strongly supporting the full transmission to digital, does want safeguards in place to ensure that Australians who currently have access to free-to-air television will continue to have that same access after the switch-off of the analog signal. Black spots must be identified and rectified, consumer measures need to ensure a high level of take-up before the switch-over, and the government should outline a clear pathway for community television broadcasters to a digital future.

The coalition continues to strongly support the transition to digital. There are of course a number of very evident advantages and efficiencies that will flow to consumers and broadcasters as a result of this transition. But we do not want anyone left behind by this transition. It is the viewers who ultimately count—they are what this is all about. We want to ensure that everyone who has access to an analog free-to-air signal will have access to digital transmissions without excessive personal cost. That is why I, on behalf of the coalition, will be moving amendments to this bill in the committee stage to ensure that there is more transparency in the process and that the government is active in identifying and addressing digital transmission black spots.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian Greens understand that the switch-over from analog to digital television is quite a significant transition with quite a long history behind it. Both the population and the broadcasters will require education, preparation and, in some cases, support in order to make the transition successfully. The deadline will provide a useful incentive to prompt both the broadcasters and the population to get ready. But, as we know, a number of quite ambitious deadlines have already been set in the past for Australians to switch over, and yet we still find ourselves in this situation today. In its initial 1997 report, ACMA thought that Australia could be digital by the year 2000, and the Howard government projected 2001 for digital broadcasting in metropolitan areas and in all areas by 2004.

The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television Switch-over) Bill 2008 provides another set of deadlines. The bill empowers the minister to decide if a region is ready for the switch-over and gives him six months flexibility—three months either side of a set date—before flicking off the analog transmission. The Australian Greens concur with some of those who made submissions to the inquiry that having some clear criteria for assessing the readiness of an area would assist the minister in making this decision and ensure that the process is transparent. Having the switch-over occur in an election year does provide a strong incentive for the minister to ensure that a population is sufficiently ready.

However, we are concerned that some sectors are being overlooked. This bill specifically addresses commercial and national broadcaster-owned transmitters in the Australian television-watching community, but there is no indication in the bill at all of how the difficulties associated with community television broadcasters or current self-help transmission facilities, which retransmit commercial, national and national Indigenous television services, will be taken into account in setting or varying analog switch-off dates. At a Senate estimates hearing in October, the minister answered my question in this regard by saying:

… we have been working through a variety and considering a variety of options to assist in the transition, but at this stage we have not been able to resolve some of the difficulties. But we are confident that we will find an outcome that will deliver an enhanced community broadcasting outcome.

The minister assured us at the time that the government would be addressing that issue, but there were no details whatsoever—about the process, time lines or technology—as to how the community broadcasting sector was going to be able to make this transition. Again, in a briefing provided to my office by the department, similar statements were made that acknowledged the importance of the issue but provided no assurance that we were any closer to a solution.

Outside the remit of this bill, community and self-help broadcasters are certainly relevant to the digital switch-over. Submissions made to the inquiry noted that self-help analog-to-digital TV transmission arrangements, not only in remote areas but all over Australia, are not covered by the current digital switch-over bill. These organisations are concerned about the possibility of indefinite delay creating two tiers of broadcasting capabilities and services. As the committee’s report indicated, there is real concern that remote communities are going to miss out unless they are supported in bearing the cost of conversion.

In its submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts inquiry into this bill, the department stated:

The Government is currently considering the options available for community television to make the transition from analog to digital.

But, again, there is no indication of how or when, so I very much look forward to getting an update in the minister’s speech today, not just an assurance that the government are thinking about it or that they care about the community broadcasting sector. I am very interested to hear an update from the minister with details of some time lines, technology and information about where the consultation is at, rather than just further assurances that everything will be fine if we just trust that the process is moving along.

The government needs to address these important factors in the digital switch-over more quickly and in more detail to ensure that many people, particularly Indigenous people and people on low incomes, are not cut out of the digital age when the analog transmission systems are switched off. In addition to setting deadlines, as it does with this legislation, the government will have to establish and deliver assistance schemes to those who cannot afford the switch-over and will also need to generate clear and simple public education materials to ensure that the population is ready. We are also interested, as Senator Minchin foreshadowed, in receiving much more detailed information about what take-up rate the government assumes is appropriate—for example, whether we are benchmarking against the take-up rate in the United Kingdom. The Senate should be provided with some more detail about exactly what criteria the minister will be using to benchmark the switch-over.

I note the minister’s press release of 19 October, where we got some detail on the 30-odd local market areas and the sequence order and the approximate time in which they would be switched over. Presumably there are some criteria underpinning those, so we know that such a thing must exist. I am a little bit curious that the minister is still asking for another six months to do so. Presumably that list was not established without criteria. We are certainly interested in hearing some more detail from the government as to how that list was compiled and the criteria under which the government will be undertaking the switch-over.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is my pleasure to also make a contribution on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television Switch-over) Bill 2008. I note that it is 58 years since then Prime Minister Robert Menzies first announced the program and process for the introduction of television into Australia. Back in those days few would have thought of the type of impact and reach that television could have, not just in Australian society but in society throughout the world, or how reliant on television we would become for our news, for our entertainment, for lifestyle, sport, leisure and so many key facets, from education right through all realms of society. I am advised that the word ‘television’ is derived from both Latin and Greek origins. I am far from a scholar in either of those languages, but I am advised that it means far sight. Certainly far sight or farsightedness is what is required in seeing an appropriate transition to digital television, particularly through the passage of this legislation.

This bill contains a number of key facets. Of utmost importance in the bill is facilitating a power for the minister to ensure switch-over dates for key local markets, to essentially end simulcasting of both analog and digital signals into those key markets and instead see a digital-only signal. As the house has already heard, the minister has announced a schedule of switch-over dates, commencing in Mildura and working right through until 2013 for those regions to be switched over. The coalition, as Senator Minchin has indicated, support the broad thrust of this legislation and we recognise that it is very important to so many Australians to get this right.

The bill also requires two statutory reviews, one related to the potential for a new commercial television licence to be issued and the other relating to content and captioning rules in Australia. We welcome this because it in a sense brings to an end what has been a period of some smoke and mirrors from the government in relation to digital television switch-over and transition. When the new minister was appointed after last year’s election, he found himself the subject of the razor gang early on. One of the early victims of the government’s razor gang was Digital Australia, the agency headed by Andy Townend which was tasked with ensuring the smooth transition for Australia to a digital television framework. Minister Tanner and others lauded the savings that were going to be reached through the abolition of Digital Australia, and we were all led to believe that this was the end of those areas of expenditure and the government would be finding a cheaper and a better way to do it. Lo and behold, a few months pass by and we see the development of the Digital Switchover Taskforce. We see that it is headed by Mr Andy Townend, the same person who was heading Digital Australia, somebody who, I have confidence, from his experience in the UK and elsewhere, is doing no doubt an excellent job in ensuring the switch-over process is handled correctly. The taskforce has been given allocations to ensure a smooth switch-over occurs, as it should, but in doing so we have seen those budget savings evaporate and simply be transferred. It is a nice smoke-and-mirrors trick to be able to say, ‘We have budget savings,’ and to be able to theoretically axe an agency but then in fact simply rebuild it elsewhere within the department.

This bill gives us a clear pathway to transition. It lets us know what Mr Townend and the taskforce will be doing to help Australians ensure that they can continue to enjoy the type of services that they have in the past in relation to television, and indeed much better ones, because the potential provided by digital knows few bounds in many ways and provides great opportunities for Australians to see new services and new opportunities on their television platforms.

I say it is important to get this right because, as I said at the outset, so many Australians rely on their televisions. The late great Groucho Marx was quoted as saying that he found television very educating: ‘Every time somebody turns on the set, I go into the other room and read a book.’ But obviously for many Australians that is far from the case as they come to rely on television as a key part of their evening entertainment, their education and otherwise. However, as of 11 April this year, only some 41.8 per cent of Australian households actually had the facilities and the technology to receive digital television. If subscription or pay television take-up is included in that, some 54 per cent of households had such services. That is a significant growth over the last few years that has seen Australians reach out and ensure that they do have access to digital television. I put on the record my praise particularly for the ABC, which I think has played a very key role in this through ABC2 and its promotion of that profile. Indeed that is so, if personal experience is anything to go by, because my partner’s aunt had us out a few weeks ago buying her a new television set because she wanted to watch ABC2. So I recognise that indeed new product is a key driver of the take-up and has been a key driver of that take-up over the last months and years. Of course, with the launch of the new Free TV platform by the commercial stations recently, we expect to see even further take-up of digital television right across Australia in years to come.

Nonetheless, that does not get us away from the fact that, without pay TV included, in April this year only a little over 40 per cent of Australian households had the technology to receive digital television. Without that technology, when the switch-over date comes they will not be able to receive a signal. That is the cold, hard truth. That is why the parliament needs to get this right. I am sure the minister would not want to be the minister for communications when tens of thousands of Australians go to switch on their television sets and discover that there is no signal anymore. I am quite sure that is the last thing the minister wants, so I know he is as eager as the coalition and the Liberal Party, which started the process towards digital television, to ensure that we get this switch-over process right. That is why, as Senator Minchin outlined, it is our intent to support the principle that Free TV Australia enunciated during the Senate committee inquiry into this bill. I pay tribute to the witnesses, those who made submissions to the inquiry and, indeed, our staff on the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts, who, as always, did an outstanding job in assisting us through this issue.

Free TV rightly argued that there needs to be some form of readiness criteria. It is one thing for the minister to say we will have a switch-off date, one thing for there to be a cut-off date out there—and I understand the logic of trying to work towards that cut-off date and to do so in a manner that gives people a clear deadline by which to make the switch-over themselves—but, equally, we believe there needs to be a greater level of transparency from the government as to what they believe would be acceptable when Mildura, as the first region, is cut off and other regions are subsequently cut off from receiving an analog signal.

Free TV argued that 95 per cent of households should have the technology, facilities and resources to receive a signal before the switch-off occurs in a particular region or, as the bill defines it, ‘local market area’. The coalition are not being that prescriptive, and I am sure Senator Minchin, in the committee stage, will speak in more detail to the amendments that we seek to move. We are seeking, however, for the minister to have publicly available readiness criteria to ensure, as far as possible, that broadcast services achieve the same level of coverage and reception quality after the switch-over as was available previously, that households that previously received free-to-air coverage in analog mode continue to receive it in digital mode and that adequate measures have been taken to support those households, particularly those who can least afford to convert.

As I indicated, it is not our intent to prescribe, but it is our belief that the minister, with the work of the Digital Switchover Taskforce in the department, should set out some key readiness criteria against which each region and local market area can be assessed so that we know and have confidence that the switch-off will not unduly harm large numbers of Australians as this region-by-region process unfolds. More important than what we know is that people in the regions know and have confidence that they will not be disadvantaged through the switch-off process. I would urge the government to consider and support the coalition amendments when they are debated, because they will strengthen this process. They will strengthen the faith that people can have in the process and ensure that there is confidence across all of Australia that large numbers of individual households will not be disadvantaged during the switch-over.

There are a couple of other, broader issues. The minister, I know, is well aware of the specific challenges facing high-density dwellings such as apartment blocks in areas like the Gold Coast and some of the technical challenges of ensuring that switch-over occurs there. I know that some funding has been made available to address those technical challenges. I welcome that and look forward to the government ensuring that building owners and the residents in those types of dwellings are confident that they will be able to receive the signal they expect.

Senator Ludlam has rightly highlighted, as did Senator Minchin, the importance of this for community broadcasters. I too have received representations from community television broadcasters in my home state of South Australia. I am aware of the pressures they face at present. As increasing numbers of households switch to buying digital televisions, community broadcasters face the risk that, as they currently only have funding to broadcast an analog signal, over time they will lose their market share. I urge the government to resolve the issue with community broadcasters as soon as possible to ensure that they receive the funding necessary to allow them to make the transition to the digital television platform.

I also note the challenges for remote areas that Senator Ludlam spoke of and recognise that in regional and remote areas it will be equally important for the government to apply specific policy measures that allow broadcasters and communities to receive the types of signals that are required and not to be disadvantaged during this process.

In terms of disadvantage, can I finally reflect on one of the two statutory reviews that the government has highlighted, the review into content and captioning. Whilst I recognise that the intent of this is to ensure that broadcasters with the new multichannelling that will be and is available to them on the digital platform continue to provide the types of services that Australians rightly expect in terms of the languages available, the range of children’s programs and standards across those multichannels, it is equally important to make sure that we do not disadvantage those regional broadcasters who have to make the switch first. The risk in bringing forward this review of content and captioning requirements is, of course, that those regional broadcasters could find themselves on the digital platform and having to adhere to certain standards before those standards apply elsewhere. That would be nonsensical. In undertaking this review, should there be—as I expect there would be—some changes made to the requirements, I urge the government to have those changes not take effect until closer to 2013, when all regions, all local market areas, will have made the switch-over.

In closing, I urge the government to consider the issues raised. I think this is an issue about which all members of the Senate are as one in hoping that Australia gets this right. We hope that the digital transition is a success—that Australians get to enjoy the enormous potential benefits provided by digital television and that the continued evolution of television in Australian society is a positive one. But we also hope that it is not done in a manner that creates risk or harm, be it to regional broadcasters, to people in high-density dwellings, to those less fortunate who may not be able to afford the equipment required to make the transition or to regions where take-up is somewhat slower than elsewhere. We need to have confidence that they are ready before switch-off occurs. I urge the government to consider and accept the amendments that the coalition will be moving so that we can all support the bill with confidence.

Alan Eggleston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As has been said, 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 around Australia, with the final switch-over date being in 2013. It is important to note that the process of digital conversion in Australia has been a longer saga, as I have said elsewhere, than Blue Hills. The idea of switching to digital television has been around for a very long time. The process of actually getting there has been very slow indeed.

In fact, the first time I saw digital television was at an exhibition here in Parliament House in 1998 when the various television companies set up a display of digital TV in the Main Committee room. I must say that, although it was only a standard definition picture, I was very impressed by the clarity and the quality of the picture. But the people I spoke to at Channel 10 told me that standard definition was only part of the story; the real glory of digital television was in high-definition broadcasting. They said to me that it was a pity that I could not go to the International Broadcasting Convention being held in Amsterdam the weekend after that display, because that conference was devoted to digital television and would include high-definition digital television and multichannelling.

As it happened, I could go, because I was going to a conference in Trinidad and would be going through London that weekend. I diverted to Amsterdam and went to the International Broadcasting Convention, where I was stunned by what digital television had to offer. It was not just the quality of the picture—and the quality of the high-definition picture is, of course, quite amazing. More important, I felt, was the opportunity to multichannel. You could have several pictures of, say, a sporting event, looked at from different angles, and there were various other options which multichannelling offered. I thought that the great benefits that multichannelling offered were what we should be seeking to bring to Australia from digital television. It meant that you could, for example, have a channel devoted to children’s education. You could have channels devoted to other speciality interests. For example, there could be three ABC channels: one devoted to education, one devoted to children’s programs and then the ordinary ABC channel. This could also be done by the commercial channels. I returned to Australia highly enthusiastic about the possibilities that digital television offered. I spoke to then Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Richard Alston about what I saw as this exciting option. Later that year, he also went to Europe and also had a look at digital television.

But, as Senator Birmingham has said, the progress towards the switch-over date has been very slow indeed. There were various factors which came into play, as Senator Birmingham has said. Among them, of course, was that different commercial channels in Australia had views about the desirability or otherwise of converting to digital television. While we procrastinate, the delay will go on. Until Australians have been able to see the brilliance of digital television, which they can now, they will be unwilling to convert. The quickest conversion in the world was in the United Kingdom, where the satellite television channel there, BSkyB, gave every household a set-top box. Every household in the UK had a set-top box free of charge, and they were able to watch digital television on their analog set. Given that there are about seven million houses in Australia and set-top boxes cost about $50 these days, if the Australian commercial television broadcasters were of a mind to spend $35 million and present each household in Australia with a set-top box, I think Australia would move very quickly into the digital era. Although it has been a long, slow road, we are getting there. I welcome this legislation.

Some of the television channels were reluctant to switch to digital and multichannelling, believing, I suppose, that this would protect their market position. Channel Seven need to be respected because they wished to switch to digital and multichannelling much earlier than some of the other commercial channels have. It is very interesting that, while the commercial channels have lagged in agreeing to the digital switch over, subscription TV has gone ahead by leaps and bounds. Subscription TV not only is solely digital now but also offers about 130 channels. I believe Foxtel is now in about 30 per cent of the households in metropolitan Sydney. Equally, around the rest of the country people are showing that they like the option of digital television and multichannels. I am sure that is a message the commercials are picking up, because now they are moving towards a digital conversion.

I would like to make a special mention of regional television services needing special assistance to make the conversion to digital television. In Western Australia, for example, we have two satellite based commercial networks which, rather than just having one transmitter in one capital city as the capital city commercials do, have to have a transmitter in every town in Western Australia—and there are quite a lot of them. The cost of putting in the equipment to receive and transmit a digital signal in all those different locations is quite high, and that same consideration would apply to regional television services in other states around the country.

Both Senator Ludlam and Senator Birmingham have mentioned community television. I think it is very important that community television not be forgotten in this question of the digital conversion. Community television, unlike commercial television, is not well funded, but it does provide an important service to the community. In Western Australia, regrettably, Channel 31 in Perth, which was an excellent community television station, has folded. It found that being unable to transmit in digital meant that it continually lost viewers to the other, digital, channels in Western Australia, so it was not able to continue its broadcasts and the company has closed down. That really is a matter of regret, because Channel 31 Perth was probably the best community television service in Australia. For example, it trained young people in television technology so that they could go out and get employment in the commercial world of television. It did this under the Green Corps program, which seems to be a rather strange use of Green Corps, but nevertheless many young people in Perth received training in television technology at Channel 31, and I for one was very sorry that it had to wind up its operations.

In conclusion, I welcome this bill because, while it does not provide for a switch-over date in the near future—with a final switch-over date towards the end of 2013—at least there is now a definite switch-over date. When that occurs, the conversion-to-digital saga will still not be the longest saga in Australian commercial broadcasting history—that honour will still belong to Blue Hills!

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Time is short as we approach the end of the legislative year. Because of the mismanagement of the program by the government, we are being asked to keep our remarks to a minimum. My colleagues Senator Birmingham and Senator Eggleston have both given the background to the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television Switch-over) Bill 2008. I congratulate Senator Coonan, the former Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, for getting the digital television program on its way. It is good to see the current government continuing that enthusiasm. I speak as one who has for several years had a set-top box on my television set. In Townsville, in regional Northern Australia, where I come from, all three commercials have been ready for high-definition digital television for some time. We have the benefit of the second ABC channel even in the north of Australia, where I live.

I did raise with the minister at estimates the situation where the first area to be required to go fully digital is one region in Victoria, which, I understand, has the greatest number of set-top boxes already installed. I also understand from estimates that the second region is my home region of Townsville in North Queensland. I expressed the concern that there was a cost being put onto Townsville residents—the cost of acquiring a set-top box or a new television—at an early stage and which would not be imposed upon city viewers until two or three years later. I understand that the commercial television stations in the north and elsewhere are very keen to have the analog switch-off as soon as possible. They are very keen to avoid the cost of simulcasting in both analog and digital, and I appreciate that that is an issue for the station owners.

I suspect that, when push comes to shove, most people will spend the money on the set-top box. I was in Crazy Clark’s the other day—and I will speak softly so that I do not interrupt Minister Conroy’s slumber, Mr Acting Deputy President Marshall; I will keep my voice down—which is one of those stores that sell cheaper goods, and I think I saw a set-top box there for $28. I am not quite sure what the quality would be like, but certainly the price of a decent set-top box now is much less than it was when I bought one a couple of years ago. So, hopefully, people will be able to be involved.

One of the things that concern me, though, is that there will be black spots. Unfortunately, while ACMA did have an office in Townsville for many years, I understand, through estimates, that that is about to be shut down, and five people who used to work at the ACMA office in Townsville will now be relocated to Brisbane. So there will not be anyone on the spot to deal with black-spot issues, which do occur in all parts of Australia, I am sure. In Townsville it is because of Castle Hill and Mount Stuart and other intervening physical features. A lot of work does need to be done to ensure that all residents are eligible to get a television signal. With the early move to a digital-only signal in Townsville, I think it is very important that the minister and the government ensure that there is a process in place whereby black spots can be, first of all, identified and confirmed and then addressed, and I would be interested to hear the minister’s views on this. It is of course something that we will continue to pursue through estimates.

Apart from that, as my colleagues have mentioned, the coalition does support the bill—with the amendment to be moved by Senator Minchin, which is a very sensible and worthwhile amendment and one which I urge the Senate to support when it comes up in the committee stage.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television Switch-over) Bill 2008 implements the government’s policy to achieve the digital switch-over by the end of 2013. The bill does not change the objectives of the existing legislative framework for digital television under the Broadcasting Services Act. Rather, these amendments to the act will give the government greater flexibility within the existing framework to deal with the unique challenges of the digital television switch-over in Australia.

The bill will enable the government to set a phased, region-by-region switch-over timetable for the transition to digital-only television. This will allow the switch-over process to be carefully managed across the country and to ensure that everyone who currently receives analog free-to-air television will be able to receive digital free-to-air television by the time the switch-over is completed in December 2013.

The bill provides for the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy to determine, by legislative instrument, local market areas for switch-over. This will allow areas smaller than television licence areas to be the basis of a switch-over timetable. This will enable the government’s switch-over program to better reflect local market conditions and circumstances. The bill gives the minister power to determine switch-over dates for those local market areas and for television licence areas. The bill will also allow switch-over dates to be brought forward in some areas if this is considered appropriate. Currently, the simulcast period can only be extended.

The bill 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 date to be finalised in response to local issues as they arise. The government is required to consult ACMA before making or varying a determination. The government will also be advised by the Digital Switchover Taskforce on decisions to vary switch-over dates within the six-month window. The bill also provides for significant and unforeseen events that could make it technically difficult for a broadcaster to commence digital-only broadcasting by the determined date. In such cases, the switch-over date can be extended by more than three months. However, there can be no extension to the switch-over date beyond 30 June 2014.

The bill sets firm dates for the timing of two existing statutory reviews, to provide certainty for industry and to reflect the government’s switch-over program. A review concerning the content and captioning rules applicable to commercial television multichannels will be conducted before 1 January 2010. This review will include consideration of the effect of a staggered switch-over timetable on broadcaster obligations. A review concerning the allocation of new commercial television broadcasting licences will occur before 1 January 2012. This review is currently legislated to occur before switch-over begins.

Given the complex technical issues involved, responsibility for overseeing digital television switch-over in remote licence areas will be retained by ACMA in consultation with the Digital Switchover Taskforce. Consistent with metropolitan and non-remote regional areas, the bill requires switch-over in remote licence areas to occur by 31 December 2013.

I want to make a few comments about the proposed opposition amendments. The key difference between the approach of this government and that of the previous government with respect to digital television is that this government has actually set a date—not a target, not an ambition but a date. This firm timetable to implement switch-over has provided certainty for consumers and industry in the transition to digital. A firm switch-over timetable will give a strong focal point for information campaigns and will also help complementary industry campaigns such as the Freeview campaign which—as those who were lucky enough to be at the launch last week would know—is the most exciting development in free-to-air television in probably 50 years. It is probably even bigger than colour TV, I would say, Senator Minchin. I am sure you remember black-and-white television.

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do remember.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is going to be bigger than the excitement when you moved from that black-and-white set to a colour set. A firm timetable will also provide certainty for industry in planning for a post-analog environment.

I cannot stress enough the importance of a timetable. Manufacturers will not respond to targets. Manufacturers will not respond to ambitions. They will only agree to produce the equipment that we need to drive digital uptake if they believe there is a firm target. A firm timetable will also allow broadcasters to plan for the retirement of analog equipment. This is particularly important in regional and rural Australia. The previous government set a target of 2008. If the previous government had kept its word, we would have already switched off. It would be happening right now. But, as you can see from the statistics, without a firm commitment from the manufacturers, from the broadcasters and from all the other stakeholders in this sector, after seven years of digital television we have gone almost nowhere. It is only in the last 12 months, with the pressure from this government, and by setting the target, that we have seen industry agreement about the Freeview box and a manufacturing agreement to start producing low-cost equipment to put into the market. What will come from this legislation, ultimately, is an advertising campaign to inform Australians about how they can go about switching over. All of this stems from one decision that this government had the courage to make—unlike the previous government, which could not actually bite the bullet.

To be fair, Senator Eggleston and Senator Birmingham discussed some of the difficulties that the previous government faced. I am not being completely partisan, because this is a complex and difficult area. But what we see with the opposition amendments is that the government would be required to report on the switch-over readiness of an area six months before the scheduled switch-over date. Where the area is not deemed ready, they would develop a plan to rectify this or delay switch-over in this area. This is a recipe to go back to the future. This is a recipe to return to the situation of, ‘If you don’t want the possibility of new competitors in the market, you give people an economic incentive to go very slowly.’ That was a fundamental flaw in the previous government’s strategy. It gave an economic incentive for those who needed to help drive the change to actually drive the change incredibly slowly. That is the key difference. We have said, ‘No, we are going to push on; we are going to keep the pressure on and we are going to deliver this.’ It is not just about a better picture. It is about the interactivity; it is about the set-top boxes; it is about the capacity to record, shift and watch television when you want to watch it. It is a fundamental paradigm shift that will come from moving to digital and closing down analog. What the opposition’s amendments seek to do, in a very benign way, is to actually gut the incentive of key stakeholders to continue to drive the agenda. It may sound very benign, Senator Williams—

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Williams interjecting—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, that sounds so reasonable. The problem is that it was that reasonable approach which handed control of the agenda to stakeholders who had an incentive to do nothing. This amendment would achieve that. It would hand back the incentive to go slow.

The opposition also proposes that reports be issued every three months, until 1 September 2014, on transmission black spots. The Digital Tracker program announced in March 2008 will provide this information to the public on a regular basis throughout the switch-over process. We already have in place a mechanism to deliver the very outcome that is being suggested. The Digital Tracker will provide national and switch-over-area-specific results for actual conversion, intentions to convert, understanding and awareness, amongst other performance indicators. The combination of these four factors will establish the percentage of the population that is ready for switch-over—that is, the number of viewers who have or will convert and are aware of the digital switch-over in their area. The proposed amendments would create unnecessary process, given that the Digital Tracker has already been established to provide this information. The process would also deprive both industry and consumers of certainty in switch-over, highlighted by the former government’s Digital Action Plan as being so important.

Let me be clear: the work done previously said, ‘Look, you’ve got to do this,’ and we have responded. The bill already provides for switch-over to be delayed in a particular area by up to three months to take into account specific local market issues that may arise. I note that the opposition’s amendments do not propose to extend the time that the government could delay switch-over. The government will be required to consult ACMA before making or varying a switch-over date and will be advised by the Digital Switchover Taskforce on decisions to vary switch-over dates within the six-month window.

The absence of publicly defined targets does not preclude the establishment of internal targets which will facilitate and promote effective management of the switch-over program. This will include using data obtained from the Digital Tracker program. The Digital Tracker will become part of the overall risk management approach to be adopted by the government. The tracker will provide a continuous source of publicly available data on which to base this assessment. Rather than delaying switch-over due to lower than expected levels of readiness in an area, the tracker will be a powerful management tool for both government and broadcasters to ensure that the original switch-over date is met.

The switch to digital television is important to Australia. Digital TV provides the potential for new digital channels to be delivered with vastly improved picture and sound quality. Digital switch-over will also free up valuable spectrum capacity for a range of next-generation communications technologies, including wireless telephony and broadcasting services.

This bill makes the necessary amendments to the existing legislative framework to ensure a smooth, well-managed transition to digital-only television for the benefit of all Australians. I know that Senator Ludlam has raised a number of issues around community television. While I am not able to reveal all of the information that I think he would like, I assure him that the government recognises the important place that community TV holds in the Australian media landscape. This bill aims to set in place the framework by which the government can achieve digital switch-over in keeping with the original legislative framework. It is not intended to provide a pathway for community television to switch to digital.

The previous government’s Digital Action Plan provided no firm pathway for transitioning community TV from analog to digital. Unlike the previous government, the Rudd government is committed to ensuring that community TV has a future in digital broadcasting. We have actively engaged with the community TV sector on this issue. Community TV’s representative body, ACTA, has a representative on the Digital Switchover Taskforce Industry Advisory Group. That is how seriously we take the role and importance of community television—we have included them in the process.

In the interim, I note that most digital televisions in Australia are capable of receiving analog services, including community television, and also that analog televisions that receive digital through a set-top box can continue to receive analog community television. But, again, to reassure the Senate, community TV is an integral part of Australian broadcasting and the government is committed to its future. We have had extensive conversations. I have met with community TV as a group two or three times over the last 12 months and with individual stations on a number of occasions. I have written to the Western Australian Premier, the Queensland Premier and the South Australian Premier to assure them that we will be delivering a pathway to the community television sector and they should not consider whatever funding arrangements they have in their own states as something that should be withdrawn on the basis that there is no future. So I have taken concrete steps to reassure Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland, where there have been a number of difficulties over the last 12 months or so—not so much in South Australia, but they are a fledgling organisation. I have spoken with a number of premiers and ministers directly to reassure them that there will be a transition path for community television. We take it very seriously. In fact, in the last 48 hours, I met with one of the state based community TV organisations to discuss these very issues. So our door, unlike the previous government’s, is wide open to the community TV sector, and we take very seriously our obligations.

Community TV provides valuable training, valuable educational information and valuable entertainment. We do not resile from our commitment to deliver a pathway. It is complex; it is not possible to set down one national pathway at this stage. It may be that the individual states are dealt with on an individual basis because the available amount of spectrum in some areas is limited. In Perth—as I am sure you are familiar with, Senator Ludlam—they actually have a surplus of spectrum. It is an easier solution, ultimately, for community television in Western Australia than in, say, Brisbane. There are complex issues and competing claims. A whole raft of issues were shoved under the carpet by the previous government, who were interested not in finding solutions but in bumping them off and moving them somewhere else so they could flog off spectrum to the highest bidder, and they did not really care what happened to community TV after that. That was a very active consideration. Well, that is not the approach being taken by the Rudd government.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.