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

asked the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, upon notice, on 16 March 2011:

With reference to digital television access in remote communities:

(1) Can the Minister confirm writing to around 140 remote Indigenous communities that run analogue television self-help transmission facilities, on or about 1 April 2010, to advise them of the options they had for converting to digital.

(2) Is it a fact that one of the options provided in that letter was for the communities to set up a digital self-help television transmission facility.

(3) In regard to a letter I received on 21 December 2010 indicating that the special equipment required to set up a Viewer Access Satellite Television (VAST) fed digital terrestrial facility would only become available in January 2011, could the department state exactly what assistance it might have provided those Indigenous communities to assess the option of setting up their own digital self-help transmission facility.

(4) As a comparison, can an outline be provided of what the department and the Government have done to financially assist and inform homes within those communities to assess the option of converting to the new VAST satellite.

(5) Is it a fact that, for 16 of the above remote Indigenous communities in North and far North Queensland, pressure is being exerted for them to finally decide, by 28 February, whether the households within those communities will convert to Direct-To-Home (DTH) from the new VAST satellite platform or set up their own digital terrestrial self-help transmission facility.

(6) In developing the new VAST satellite platform and the Satellite Subsidy Scheme (SSS), announced nearly a year ago, what assessments had the department undertaken on remote Indigenous communities to develop knowledge about the:

(a) average number of television sets and recorder devices in homes which would need to be converted to digital;

(b) way in which Indigenous people watch television, particularly during the summer months when it is very hot inside homes;

(c) extent of insertion of local material into local self-help television transmissions; and

(d) extent to which indoor, cheap set top aerials only are needed for current terrestrial television reception.

(7) I understand that the per home subsidy available to homes in, so called, remote Indigenous communities in Queensland to convert to the VAST satellite is $980, however, if an Indigenous home is located elsewhere in Queensland (for example, Quilpie or Normanton) the subsidy will be either $550 or $700 respectively – can an explanation be provided regarding the reasons for the difference, including exactly what consultation took place with remote Indigenous viewers when determining these figures.

(8) At Estimates in May 2010, the department stated that the only currently available model of a VAST set top box cost approximately $269 (a cost now estimated at $280), whereas the Minister stated at the same time that an equivalent High Definition terrestrial set top box cost approximately $80, indicating that portable indoor aerials for terrestrial television reception are clearly less expensive than satellite dishes and mounts – is it therefore a fact that the total private and public subsidy cost of homes in remote Indigenous communities converting to digital via satellite is nearly always likely to be significantly more expensive than converting by terrestrial means.

(9) Is it a fact that, after the satellite subsidy period expires, all new or replacement homes in remote Indigenous communities will be faced with the full, extra cost of VAST direct from satellite reception and that this will nearly always be more expensive than equivalent digital terrestrial reception.

(10) Is it a fact that no businesses or public facilities in remote Indigenous communities, such as schools, health clinics and community facilities, will be eligible for the VAST satellite conversion subsidy.

(11) What cost benefit studies has the department undertaken to compare, for example, the 10 year, full private and public cost of converting remote Indigenous communities (including new homes and businesses) to digital via VAST satellite or self-help digital terrestrial means and can details of any such cost benefit study be provided.

(12) What is the view of the department regarding the ongoing private cost of maintaining satellite dishes and, in particular, smart cards for the VAST set top boxes in remote Indigenous communities.

(13) Has the department conducted a detailed survey following the two recent cyclones in far North Queensland regarding the impact of cyclonic winds on individual DTH satellite dish installations.

(14) If Queensland local councils and remote Indigenous communities are being required to choose between DTH VAST or digital terrestrial self-help by 28 February and remote Indigenous homes in Queensland will be invited to opt into the Government’s per home subsidy scheme to assist them in converting to satellite on 20 April, what is the Government doing to assist remote Indigenous communities to develop robust digital self-help facility designs and to compare the overall benefits of converting to digital via VAST satellite or digital self-help terrestrial means before these deadlines.

(15) Will the Government consider allowing remote Indigenous communities to pool their per home satellite subsidy payments and use this total amount to help pay for the establishment of a digital terrestrial self-help transmission facility; if not, what exactly is the basis for such a position.

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

The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

(1) On or about 30 March 2010, I wrote to all 362 licensees of self help retransmission facilities to advise them of the options for converting to digital. This included about 265 licensees in remote areas of which about 87 operate self help facilities in about 112 remote indigenous communities.

(2) Yes.

(3) The department is not in a position to provide detailed technical and cost advice to communities about establishing digital self help facilities. The department provides general advice about the benefits of the Government-funded VAST satellite service, and has also written to a number of councils to ensure they are fully aware of the costs and other issues associated with setting up self help digital terrestrial towers. Decisions about whether or not to establish such facilities, or to upgrade existing facilities which are not on the broadcasters’ self-help upgrade list, are matters for the local community.

(4) The department does not provide financial support to homes to assess the option of converting to the new VAST satellite.

Licence holders of self help towers that are not converted to digital by broadcasters must make a choice whether or not to upgrade their facilities to digital themselves. If the decision is made by the licensee to not upgrade the facility, the community serviced by that tower will then be eligible for the Satellite Subsidy Scheme, to assist eligible households in meeting the cost of conversion to VAST. This recognises previous investment by these communities, usually through their rate payments, in maintaining local facilities. The amounts of the co-payment in each area will be made available to households in that area as part of the delivery of the Scheme, so that households have clear information of the cost to them of moving to VAST.

(5) Between March 2010 and February 2011, the Minister and the department had a number of communications with self help licensees, including in Queensland. A final date of 20 June 2011 was set for councils in regional and remote Queensland to decide whether or not they wished to convert their own towers or allow their communities to move to the VAST service with assistance from the Satellite Subsidy Scheme. It was made clear to councils that on that date it would be assumed that the Council would not be converting their tower, so SSS would start organising to deliver subsidised VAST installation to eligible households. These timeframes were needed to ensure that the Satellite Subsidy Scheme could be delivered to Queensland communities in a timely fashion in advance of switchover in regional Queensland in December.

(6) The department has visited a number of Remote Indigenous Communities in Queensland, and also some in other parts of Australia, to refine its approach to delivering the Satellite Subsidy Scheme in those communities. Officers discussed with community members the viewing preferences of different households and communities, climactic conditions and other issues. This work is ongoing.

Based on research undertaken by the department, there are up to 31,000 households in defined remote Indigenous communities across Australia that are likely to be eligible for the Satellite Subsidy Scheme. The majority of these households are in remote Western Australia, Northern Territory, remote South Australia and far North Queensland. The Scheme allows for the conversion of one television set per household to be met by Government at no cost to the household in Indigenous communities, and also allows for extra connections to be installed by the technician at the cost of the householder.

While set top aerials potentially allow greater portability, it should be noted that many towers in remote communities are small with low powered transmitters, and reception by set top aerials may not be reliable. Reliable reception would often require fixed roof top aerials, which would present the same issues regarding portability of sets (whether within or outside the home) as satellite receivers. In addition, communities may not be in a position to properly maintain or provide a protected operating environment for the transmission equipment, meaning that services could be off air for extended periods.

The extent to which local content insertion occurs in self-help television transmissions in remote Indigenous communities was considered in the recent review into Indigenous Broadcasting. The Government is currently considering the report of the review.

(7) Eligibility for the additional $280 assistance is based on a definition of remote Indigenous community widely accepted and used by many Government agencies. The definition includes reference to a geographic location, bounded by physical boundaries, and inhabited predominantly by Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander peoples with housing or infrastructure that is managed on a community basis. This additional assistance will mean that, under the Satellite Subsidy Scheme, installations are essentially at no cost to the household in these communities.

A clear definition for Indigenous communities, using accepted Government definitions, is necessary in order to allow for the successful delivery of the Scheme. This allows whole communities to be provided with consistent services under the Scheme. It is not feasible to deliver the Scheme in circumstances where different households or groups of households within a wider general population (eg Normanton) receive different types of service at different costs. Moreover these towns often have better established local council structures and lower installation costs than very remote indigenous communities.

The key cost from the household perspective is the co-payment actually paid by the household, not the amount of subsidy. Contracts for delivery of the Scheme are negotiated on the basis of a single fixed co-payment cost per household in a switchover region or part of a switchover region, regardless of location, which to date has been between $200-$220 per household.

(8) The Government gave extensive consideration to the merits of different options to ensure that all Australians are able to receive the same number of television channels, no matter where they live. A satellite service is required regardless of terrestrial upgrades – it is not feasible or economically viable to provide the full range of digital channels to virtually all Australians by terrestrial means alone.

Accurate cost comparisons between terrestrial transmission and satellite are difficult to make because the upgrade and operating cost of terrestrial self-help retransmission facilities is potentially unique to each site, and the costs of installing direct-to-home satellite also vary. For example, the upgrade of a self-help retransmission site might require complete replacement of all broadcasting infrastructure at a site, or it might require only some items to be upgraded if others are already suitable for digital transmission. It might also require replacement or upgrade of the electricity supply and air conditioning at the site. Ongoing operational costs for terrestrial retransmission will depend on the level of servicing provided, the time period over which any service contracts operate, and the timeframes for service responses.

The costs of receiving digital terrestrial signals in homes and businesses will also vary depending on their location, number of receivers and the suitability of their existing antenna arrangements. For example, while some premises may be able to receive digital services with existing indoor antennas, others served by the same terrestrial site may need to modify or install a new external antenna or a high gain antenna with a masthead amplifier. Additionally, satellite delivery will incur one-off costs for consumers and broadcasters rather than the ongoing nature of terrestrial transmission costs for licensees.

Conversion of terrestrial sites is also not ‘cost-free’ to householders. In addition to equipment needed in the home to receive digital signals, the costs of upgrading to digital, ongoing maintenance and transmission costs can be expected to be passed on to householders through their rates.

(9) After the Satellite Subsidy Scheme period in an area expires, households in the area (new or existing) will not be able to receive a subsidy under the Scheme.

(10) Yes. The government is not providing assistance to businesses or public facilities to convert to digital in any areas of Australia.

(11) See answer A8 above. The Government decided to implement a comprehensive satellite service to provide services in areas across Australia that are not served by digital terrestrial towers, and to support local communities to move to that service in cases where self help towers were not converted to digital. The Government considers that satellite is an excellent option for communities not a second best solution.

Each affected community is now able to offer their members a choice – whether to continue with the traditional terrestrial self-help transmission and pay for the upgrade and ongoing costs, or choose to avail themselves of the satellite TV service now being offered. This is a decision for each community to make and to weigh up the pros and cons that affect their community.

(12) The Satellite Subsidy Scheme provides one-off to move to digital – its purpose is to assist conversion to digital, not to permanently subsidise television watching in communities. The ongoing private cost of maintaining satellite dishes and smart cards is the responsibility of the householder, after the after-care period has expired. This is consistent with households in all other areas of Australia that access the Satellite Subsidy Scheme.

This is also consistent with many Indigenous households in remote areas that currently receive Aurora, the previous generation free-to-air satellite television, which continues to broadcast until 2013.

(13) The department’s tender and contractual documents specify that the installations must meet the Building Code of Australia and Australian standards to ensure any installations provided under the SSS scheme are safe and fit for purpose in cyclonic areas of Australia. Tens of thousands of Aurora, Austar and Foxtel satellite dishes in northern Australia have withstood many tropical cyclones and storms in recent years.

(14) The Government has not provided assistance to any communities across Australia to explore the merits of different digital television transmission and reception options.

(15) The government carefully considered proposals to allow for the ‘pooling’ of funds to support community-based terrestrial but did not support these for a range of policy and operational reasons.

The government’s aim in the switchover process was to address, as much as possible, long-standing issues in regional and remote areas and ensure the delivery of the full suite of channels available in metropolitan areas through reliable, consistent and ‘future-proof’ infrastructure arrangements.

The government considers that pooling of funds would not cover all the costs of converting self-help facilities, particularly in small communities. In addition, the pooling of subsidies would result in a patchwork approach – providing various standards of service which would be a less than optimal outcome and inconsistent with the Government’s objective of providing equal television services to viewers in all parts of Australia.

This would also make the program more complex, and therefore costly, to deliver. Allowing some councils to pool the subsidy would give rise to reduced economies of scale. It would also create an administratively complex scheme, requiring individual contractual arrangements with an unknown proportion of the 360 self-help licensees, layered on top of the current Satellite Subsidy Scheme model.