Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

BROADCASTING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (PRIMARY TELEVISION BROADCASTING SERVICE) BILL 2015

The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Primary Television Broadcasting Service) Bill 2015 provides the national and commercial free-to-air broadcasters with the flexibility to deliver programming on their primary television services in either standard definition or high definition formats. Broadcasters' primary television services include ABC1, SBS ONE, 7, Prime7, Nine, WIN and Ten, and these services are subject to particular obligations regarding Australian content, captioning and anti-siphoning.

At present, free-to-air broadcasters are required to provide their primary television service in standard definition. This is a relic of the analog era, introduced at the start of the digital television switchover process to ensure that viewers would have access to at least one digital channel per broadcaster. At the time not all televisions and set-top boxes were capable of receiving high definition content.

This Government is committed to removing unnecessary and outdated regulations that hamper industry from providing services that respond to audience preferences.

The Government has implemented a range of initiatives to remove red tape through its deregulation work program, which was initiated in the Communications portfolio with the release of the Deregulation Roadmap in May 2014.

This Roadmap committed the Government to undertake a review of the free-to-air digital television regulatory framework to ensure it is fit-for-purpose for the next wave of innovation in the media sector.

The first stage of that review involved the identification of provisions that were redundant or spent following the completion of Australia's switch to digital-only television.

The second stage began in January this year, when the Department of Communications released a consultation paper seeking the views of the public and industry on future arrangements for digital television regulation.

The proposal to allow broadcasters to provide their primary service in either standard or high definition received strong support from the general public and free-to-air broadcasters.

High definition television equipment is now virtually ubiquitous in Australian homes. A Newspoll survey conducted in February 2014 after the completion of the digital switchover process found that 96 per cent of all households had a main television set or set-top box that was capable of receiving high definition content. It is expected that this figure has grown, with high definition capability generally standard in televisions and set-top boxes currently on the market.

Moreover, with the completion of digital switchover and the availability of a range of new television services, many Australians now expect premium free-to-air programming to be provided in high definition – especially events such as live sports.

The Bill responds to these developments and amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to allow the primary service to be provided in either standard or high definition. It does not change any other existing arrangements regarding the primary service such as captioning, Australian content or anti-siphoning requirements.

The anti-siphoning scheme requires any listed events to be televised first on a broadcaster's primary service. The Bill will allow broadcasters to meet this obligation while also having the option of providing anti-siphoning events in high definition.

Indeed, the Bill is being introduced now to provide broadcasters with the flexibility to broadcast upcoming events such as this year's AFL and NRL Grand Finals in high definition, should they chose to do so.

The Government is committed to reducing the regulatory burden for business, including the media industry. This Bill will provide free-to-air broadcasters with greater flexibility to innovate and evolve to incorporate new technologies, ensuring they continue to remain relevant in a changing media environment.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Labor Party, I would like to indicate our support for the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Primary Television Broadcasting Service) Bill 2015. This amendment to the Broadcasting Services Act will allow commercial and national broadcasters the flexibility to provide their broadcasts in either standard definition or high definition. I will give a little context as to why this amendment is necessary. When the switchover began to digital television, Australia needed to ensure that all Australians across the nation did not lose access to the television content that they know and love. This was important at that time given the take-up and access to digital enabled televisions and set-top boxes was relatively small. As has been pointed out in other places, more than 96 per cent of all Australian householders now have access to high-definition televisions or set-top boxes. The survey was done by Newspoll in 2014 and we can safely assume that the percentage of households which now have access to high-definition content is even higher.

The other important aspect of the amendment will be to allow both commercial and national broadcasters to meet their requirements with regard to the anti-siphoning scheme that required all broadcasters to televise all listed events on their primary service. For example, this has meant that for broadcasters to meet their obligations they have had to broadcast the Ashes, the NRL and the AFL grand finals on standard definition. The intention was to ensure that all Australian homes continued to have access to the listed events that they had a right to expect while access to high-definition television sets and boxes at that time was relatively small, but, given the change in circumstances, it is evident, with the high number of households accessing high-definition enabled devices, that this protection is no longer needed. The amendment will ensure that there is an even playing field between the free-to-air and pay TV broadcasters, allowing all to broadcast listed events on either standard or high definition. For that reason, the Labor Party will support the bill, although we have expressed some concern that it has taken the government so long to have this matter put before the parliament.

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak in support of the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Primary Television Broadcasting Service) Bill 2015.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you even know what it is?

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do. The legislation that we have surrounding—

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why has the government got so many speakers on a non-controversial bill? Why is this necessary?

An opposition senator: They want to talk about their footy teams.

Why is it so on non-controversial legislation?

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senators on my left are reminded that the standing orders require senators to be heard in silence. Senator Bushby.

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. There is a lot of legislation and regulation that relates to broadcasting services. It is difficult to make a worthwhile contribution when you are constantly being interrupted by interjections. The fact is that, at this time of year in particular, it is important that the broadcasting companies have the opportunity to put forward the best possible alternatives in terms of the finals for both the major football codes that are played in Australia. This bill is timely and important in being able to make that possible, and I commend it to the Senate.

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

I commend the whip on a marvellous contribution to this bill which was previously given. The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Primary Television Broadcasting Service) Bill 2015 amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 principally to allow free-to-air broadcasters to deliver programming on their primary television service in either standard-definition or high-definition formats.

In the past there has been a requirement for the main channel of a television network to broadcast only in standard definition. This was principally brought into place a number of years ago because the majority of people who had televisions were not able to get access to the high-definition format. In the interests of equity and universal reach for people to access their primary television channel it was essential to mandate that the television networks have a format that would allow everybody to access that particular format for their television broadcast.

Since that time we have seen a massive proliferation of different types of formats and different media through which we see our television networks broadcast. Most of them have many different channels, and it has been allowed that on those other channels they are able to broadcast in high-definition format. However, we have continued to require the broadcasters to broadcast their primary television service in standard definition.

This bill seeks to allow the broadcasters to transmit high definition—and this is particularly relevant, as Senator Bushby pointed out in his contribution—for sporting activities such as the grand finals of the two major codes of football. Obviously high-definition television is a superior form of broadcast. We have found that almost everybody in Australia will have access to high-definition television. My understanding is that that there is almost nobody who will not be able to access high definition. We know that across Australia, if you look at both the codes—the NRL and the AFL—there are not too many people who do not like to watch the footy final and to have the opportunity to watch in high-definition television, which is obviously something that I think a majority of Australians would welcome. The purpose of the bill is to allow that to occur.

The reform arose from the review of the digital television regulatory framework which was conducted during the past year. The proposal received strong support from free-to-air broadcaster, but most particularly the reforms received overwhelming support from the public.

The primary broadcasting service is the main service of a free-to-air broadcaster and they allocate a traditional service. When you turn your television on to Channel 7, Channel 9 or Channel 10, that is their primary service. They then have a number of other services that sit behind it which are not their primary service. These obligations relate to matters such as Australian content, captioning and antisiphoning. The primary broadcast channel has a series of rules that apply to it that do not apply to their subsidiary services. As I said, the primary services include Channel 7, Channel 9, Channel 10 and the main stations of the ABC and SBS. In general these five main services attract higher audiences than the multichannels. That is the reason why in the past the government has always sought to possibly regulate in a more robust and stricter way the primary channels of the broadcasters, whereas the multichannels that they put on for additional content are probably less regulated and have greater scope for flexibility.

Why are these requirements needed? Basically the requirement for broadcasters to provide their primary service in standard definition was introduced at the start of the digital switch-over process, which was over 10 years ago. It was a time when it would have been very easy for the main channels to switch over to high definition. Ensuring and mandating that they stayed at standard definition allowed a more seamless transition so that we did not find that people were left without adequate service. At the time, many of the television sets were not able to receive high definition, and not all set-top boxes were able to receive high-definition content. So basically the government wanted to ensure that viewers would have access to at least one digital channel per broadcaster. However, you will find that nowadays high-definition television equipment can be found in just about every home in Australia. I think a Newspoll survey conducted early last year after the completion of the digital switch-over found that 96 per cent of all households had a main television set or a set-top box capable of receiving high-definition content. It is expected that this figure has probably grown since then. The capability generally in the market is that nobody who is buying a new television now is buying a television that would not be able to access high definition. So the requirement to provide a primary channel in standard definition is largely obsolete. It also prevents broadcasters from providing services that respond to the audience preferences. As I mentioned earlier, overwhelmingly the public were in support of allowing the main broadcast channel to be able to access high-definition television format.

The bill does not actually require the broadcaster to provide their primary service in high definition; it gives them the opportunity to do so. We are not requiring them to broadcast their primary service in high definition but they will have the option of being able to provide the service in either high definition or standard definition depending on what the individual channel's market is demanding. Basically the reform will provide broadcasters with greater flexibility to make decisions about the types of services they offer in responding to customer demand. As you would probably agree, Mr Acting Deputy President, if we can give greater flexibility to our customers, our consumers and the people of Australia then we are certainly doing our job. It is not our job to be restrictive and over-prescriptive in the regulation that we place on consumers about what they can access—particularly in this space, which is an entertainment space; it is certainly not an essential service.

The question that was asked when we went out to the community was, 'Why is it important that services can be provided in high definition?' The fact is that we have seen an explosion of technology. Newer technology is driving consumer expectations. The free-to-air broadcasters need to have the opportunity to take advantage of this new technology and what it can deliver to consumers in terms of a higher quality broadcast. We are now seeing—particularly with the proliferation of different media on which consumers can get access to news, content, movies or whatever it happens to be—that people have an expectation that the quality of the service they are getting is going to be extremely high. As I said, the main television channels are predominantly the channels that people are watching—they have a higher audience reach than the multichannel transmissions—so it does not seem like an unreasonable expectation that the quality of the transmission of those main channels is as high as it possibly can be. The technology that is able to deliver that is available to those networks.

High-definition content is currently available pretty much across the whole of the pay TV networks, such as Foxtel, Netflix and Stan. All of those have high definition. It is particularly in sporting broadcasts that we can see the difference, Mr Acting Deputy President. You are probably not going to notice a great deal of difference when you are watching your nightly episode of Neighbours. But when you are watching the football final you probably will notice that the quality capability of high definition will give you a much better experience when you are watching Port Power or the Crows surge to victory in the grand final of this year's AFL.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What have you got against Ramsay Street?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Primary Television Broadcasting Service) Bill is one of a number of broadcasting matters that I expect we will start to see over the life of this parliament going forward. I know that travelling around the halls and corridors of this building at the moment are regional television broadcasters keen for parliamentarians to better understand some of the challenges being faced by regional television and, more importantly, some of the real risks to regional consumers of broadcasting services as a result of some of the very real commercial and technological changes that are happening across that space. I think it behoves all of us in this place, particularly those of us who come from regional electorates, like my own in Western Australia, to give very careful and due consideration to some of the very real challenges being faced by regional television broadcasters and to do all we can do to perhaps peel back some of the unnecessary regulation to ensure that consumers' interests—and regional consumers' interests—are put at the forefront of our consideration. But that is a debate for another day.

My attention this morning is drawn to the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Primary Television Broadcasting Service) Bill. This is a small but important step in the government's commitment to modernising Australia's communications infrastructure and the regulation that goes along with it. As chair of the Coalition Backbench Committee on Communications, it is a policy direction that I heartily support, and of course I echo the contribution of the senators who spoke before me, Senator Bushby and Senator Ruston. We quite clearly live in a digital age and it is time for regulations that govern communications policy in Australia to reflect that very obvious fact. The provisions of this legislation will give the nation's free-to-air broadcasters the ability to broadcast on their primary channel in high definition. This will remove an outdated restriction which means that at present they are only able to do so in standard definition. That limitation dates from the beginning of the digital television switch-over. At that time, several years ago, television equipment capable of receiving high-definition signal did not have the penetration levels that it enjoys today across Australia. It was necessary to require broadcasters to transmit in standard definition on their primary channel so that all households were capable of receiving at least one digital channel per broadcaster. However, we are now several years down the evolutionary track when it comes to digital technology, and virtually all televisions and set-top boxes are now capable of receiving broadcasts transmitted in high definition. Indeed a Newspoll survey from February of last year found that 96 per cent of Australian households possessed either a high-definition television set or a set-top box capable of receiving high-definition signal. I think it is very safe to say now, 18 months since that time, that that figure would only have grown. On that basis it is no longer appropriate for the government to be dictating to broadcasters as to which type of signal they will broadcast on their primary digital channel.

We know from broadcasters themselves that audiences are demanding more and more content in high-definition format, and in a fast-moving media landscape the consumer is king—the consumer is sovereign. The simple change that this legislation will bring about forms part of the government's broader approach to communications policy, which is targeted towards removing cumbersome and outdated regulations that are preventing media outlets from responding to shifts in consumer preferences.

As senators would be aware, in May of last year the government released its deregulation road map for the communications portfolio. That road map committed the government to a wholesale review of the digital free-to-air regulatory framework, to make sure that Australia's regulatory environment is in this area fit for purpose. As part of that review, the government released a discussion paper in January of this year, seeking comment from the public and industry alike on the question of the regulatory framework governing digital broadcasting. It should be noted from the responses to that the discussion paper that its proposal that broadcasters be given the option of transmitting their primary channel in either standard or high definition received very high levels of support from the public and the industry alike. It is in response to this overwhelming feedback that the government has now brought forward this legislation to the parliament. What we are doing here is simply giving broadcasters the option to broadcast in high definition on their primary digital channel.

It is important to note at this juncture that nothing contained in the legislation alters in any way arrangements surrounding broadcasters' obligations in relation to captioning, providing Australian content or anti-siphoning. I think that is worth repeating: there is nothing in this legislation that would remove those obligations that currently exist around broadcasters' obligations in relation to captioning, providing Australian content or anti-siphoning. And it is particularly important that we do this at this time because both the AFL and NRL finals are upon us.

We know that the way Australians watch television is changing radically. More and more, consumers are picking and choosing content and watching it at times that best suit them over streaming services such as Netflix, Presto and Stan. These developments are fantastic for consumers, and of course they should be welcomed and they should be endorsed. There is ample evidence to suggest Australians are rapidly embracing the new opportunities to shape their own viewing experience and that of their families and, indeed, to binge on entire seasons of their favourite programmes at the touch of a button.

However, that also presents broadcasters with a significant challenge, as they must find ways to attract viewers to their product. One of the best advantages that traditional broadcasting still has over streaming services is in their coverage of developing events, most particularly, sporting broadcasts. It is not surprising, therefore, that the right to broadcast these events has become an increasingly big and expensive business. Take, for example, last month's deal between the AFL and the Seven Network, Fox Sports and Telstra, which is the biggest sport broadcasting deal in Australian history. That agreement, worth over $2½ billion—many people stagger to try to quantify that—gives the Seven Network the opportunity for rights to broadcast three AFL matches per round in every state and territory over six years, along with the Brownlow Medal and the AFL grand final. The deal also allows Fox Sports to show every match of the round live, and will permit Telstra to stream matches to viewers via hand-held mobile devices and the AFL website.

This is of course a very significant change over the course of just a single decade. Ten years ago, the idea that people would be watching live football matches on their mobile phones was probably something many Australians could be troubled about in trying to understand and trying to picture. But today, it is a common sight as you pass through airports, railway stations and shopping centres around the country. We need to make certain that our communications regulatory framework is keeping pace with this evolving pattern of consumer behaviour.

When it comes to broadcasting, it stands to reason that having paid such large sums for the right to broadcast these sporting fixtures, such as the AFL grand final, broadcasters would want an equal opportunity of broadcasting it in high definition on their primary channel to enhance the experience for consumers, so that consumers can have all the visual and audio advantages that such broadcast quality brings to them and their families. This legislation is designed to offer broadcasters that opportunity, though of course it does not require them to do so. It is an opportunity, it is not a compulsory act required by this legislation.

More broadly, this bill is consistent with the coalition government's overall approach to regulation in public policy. Our attitude has been to carefully examine the regulatory framework across the scope of government and to dispense with regulations that are the legacy of a world that no longer exists, or if it does exist, it exists only in our imaginations or in our historical recount of events. That is why we have already had three 'repeal days' in the life of this parliament dedicated to removing the shackles of outdated, unnecessary and burdensome regulations. I know there is a fourth one scheduled in November of this year, but it is important that the parliament moves immediately on this particular issue, on this particular bill, given that we are now into the football final season in both the nation's prominent football codes.

This is a small but important and also very, very relevant change that gives the nation's free-to-air broadcasters the ability to offer a high-quality consumer experience at a time when they are facing increasing competition from streaming services and other shifts in consumer behaviour. Ultimately this legislation is doing something that should lie at the heart of all government regulation and policy in the communication portfolio and across other portfolio areas, and that is to offer greater choice to consumers.

On a final note, when we look at the future of communication policy in this country, it is easy to get distracted by the interests of media owners or of media proprietors. We must put, at the forefront of all of our considerations at every minute on every day, the interests of consumers and particularly the interests of regional consumers. When we look at media policy through the prism of the commercial interests of just media proprietors we do a great disservice to consumers and particularly to those across regional Australia who thrive on, desire and enjoy the need for local content and local news services.

It is beholden on this parliament to, at all times, make sure that there is media choice and media diversity across regional broadcasting areas. That is a debate that, I think, this parliament will come to very, very shortly. I implore cross bench and opposition senators to give the issue due consideration and do what they can to put the interests of regional consumers first and foremost in their future considerations on the issues around regional broadcasting and other media services. With that I commend the bill to the Senate.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great pleasure to speak in support of this bill. It is a very timely bill which is introduced to allow TV channels to broadcast digital or HD, high-definition, content on their primary channel. It is very timely because this weekend the football finals begin—at least in the real football code in this country, the National Rugby League. As a Queensland senator it is very exciting that the two pre-eminent Queensland teams this year, the Brisbane Broncos and the North Queensland Cowboys, will be playing against each other this Saturday night. I am advised that, unfortunately, it is unlikely that that game will be broadcast in high definition on the primary channel, but I am hopeful that this will not be the last the Brisbane Broncos and the North Queensland Cowboys face each other in this finals' series, and hopefully they will end up playing against each other on the big day, the first Sunday of October.

It may very well be the case that, if this bill goes through the parliament, Queenslanders not only will be able to view the very first NRL final between two Queensland teams—the very first time in history—but will also be able to see it for the first time in history in high definition. That will be a great thing. I am pretty confident that the Broncos and the Cowboys have been the best teams this season. They did not finish at the top, but over the course of the 26 rounds the Brisbane Broncos and the North Queensland Cowboys were the best, and I do think they may end up in the finals.

Senator Kim Carr interjecting—

Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, Senator Carr probably does not follow the game that is the most watched game in Australia.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Please resume your seat, Senator Canavan. A point of order, Senator McEwen.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order on relevance. I too could stand up and talk fulsomely about Port Adelaide's performance this year in the Australian Football League. I have chosen not to do so. However—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Resume your seat, Senator McEwen. The bill is about high-definition sporting broadcasts, and I think that Senator Canavan is relevant to the bill, however obtusely.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I will get to the details of this bill, but I think it is very important to connect with the Australian people about why we do things in this place. The actual provisions of this bill are very technical and complex, but it is very important to understand why we do these things in this parliament. Senator Carr may have a different view, and Senator McEwen may have a different view, but I actually think that for the vast majority of Australians the football finals this weekend will be a very engaging event. It is something that I certainly look forward to every year. Unfortunately, there is a National Party convention this weekend. It happens that I probably will not be able to watch the Brisbane Broncos and the Cowboys live, but I will be able to watch them on a replay on Foxtel in high definition, whereas you cannot do that at the moment on the primary TV channel.

That is why we need the changes in this bill. At the moment the free-to-air broadcasters are restricted in what they can show and broadcast compared to some of their competitors, including Foxtel and the pay TV channels, which broadcast their content in high definition, at least to some who choose to buy a Foxtel high-definition set-top box. The free-to-air channels cannot do that at the moment. On their primary channel they are restricted to only showing standard definition content. We believe as a government—and I believe it has been shown in the review, and I certainly believe—that it is time to remove that restriction and allow free-to-air broadcasters to compete on a level playing field.

This bill is called the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Primary Television Broadcasting Service) Bill 2015, but perhaps it could be and hopefully should be called the 'Broadcasting the First Queensland NRL Grand Final in High Definition Bill 2015'. I certainly hope that happens. And what does this bill do? In detail, it removes the restriction that a free-to-air broadcaster has to broadcast standard definition content on its primary broadcasting channel. That primary broadcasting channel is the traditional Nine, Seven or Ten channel, not their multichannels, like GEM, ONE and 7mate, which they can broadcast high-definition content on. This will allow them to broadcast that high-definition content on their primary channel for the first time. It does not require them to broadcast high-definition content on that channel; they have the option to do that. Presumably, and likely, they will only take that option up where there is content such as a major football final or sporting event where lots of Australians are viewing it and, of course, high-definition content adds something to the experience. Hopefully we will not get high-definition broadcasts of parliament, because I do not know about you, Senator Carr, but I am not always the best—

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, no! We don't want to look at you in high definition!

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, exactly, Senator McEwen. I do not particularly want to do that, so hopefully that will not be a consequence of this particular legislation.

Also, on their primary channels, free-to-air networks provide captioning services for the hearing impaired. They will also be protected in this legislation. They will continue to be provided, including in high-definition content, if required.

These amendments are needed, as I hinted in my opening remarks, because other competitors can provide content in high definition, but free-to-air networks cannot. This will allow them to do that, and it reduces regulation for that.

The changes proposed in this bill were recommended by an inquiry early last year. It has gone through consultation. There was a Newspoll survey done early last year showing that most Australians now have access to high-definition content. At the time, early last year, around 96 per cent of Australian households could access high-definition content. That figure has probably risen since then because the uptake of high-definition set-top boxes has been increasing over time.

It is also the case that set-top boxes are relatively cheap at the moment, and have been for some time, and that has driven uptake of these receivers. At Dick Smith at the moment, if anyone is interested, you can get a high-definition set-top box with a USB and personal videorecording capability for $49.98. It is quite cheap, and that accords with the advice that we have provided in this bill. Around the $50 mark will provide you with access to high-definition content. It is something that most Australians will be able to access and be able to afford, and that is the case already at the moment. Consumers themselves can go and buy a set-top box for around $40 or $50, and that has driven uptake.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wouldn't pay that. You can get them for $20.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Twenty dollars? I do not think high-definition, though, Senator Collins. I did do a bit of a search and I could not find a high-definition set-top box for $20. But perhaps Senator Collins could provide some advice on that to Senator Conroy, or whoever is the communications spokesman now. You might recall when Labor were last in government they went out and bought some set-top boxes for Australians. They tendered for set-top boxes. In an article in The Australian from February 2012, Senator Conroy, who was the communications minister at the time, revealed that the average price of set-top boxes under the Household Assistance Scheme was $698—and these were not necessarily high-definition set-top boxes. Six hundred and ninety-eight dollars for a set-top box! You can go down to Dick Smith and buy them for 50 bucks, and they charged the Australian taxpayers $700 for the set-top boxes! That was the average price.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Put it into context.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, let us put it into context. The article does go into a bit more detail. Senator Conroy tried to explain this seemingly massive blow-out. Originally the costs were $350 per set-top box in the budget in 2011. They blew out to $700, a doubling of the budget for this program, which was not unusual in the former Labor government.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I had forgotten the set-top boxes.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, the set-top boxes. I had to brush up on it, Senator Fifield. It was $700—I think you might have missed that—on average for a set-top box under this program. Senator Conroy tried to explain this by saying that that was just an average price and the costs ranged from $158 to $1,528. Taxpayers were being charged $1,528 for a set-top box—not a TV! It did not have any high-definition content. It was not a smart TV or an internet-connected TV or a wi-fi TV or an android TV or an Apple TV. It was a set-top box and it cost $1,500 under the former Labor government.

I thought: that is interesting. What could you buy for $1,500 at the moment down at Dick Smith? At the moment you can buy a 55-inch Samsung TV. I am thinking about buying a new TV at the moment. A 55-inch, high-definition, smart Samsung TV for $1,500—that is what you can get. That is what the Australian consumer can get in the shops if they are smart and savvy about what they are doing, which usually they are. But the former Labor government could only get a set-top box for $1,500! Harvey Norman, JB Hi-Fi and Dick Smith must have been laughing all the way to the bank. They saw the Labor Party coming and they charged them that amount of money for a program which was simply set-top boxes.

People could have gone out and bought a TV with full HD digital TV capabilities for that price. But that was not how the Labor Party rolled in government. How they rolled was: whatever the cost, whatever the price; that did not matter. All that mattered was getting through the next day for them. That is how we ended up with the debacles like the set-top box scheme, which was a complete waste of money—hundreds of millions of dollars. About $308 million was budgeted in 2011 for that program. It turned out to be another example of waste from the Labor Party and another example of inefficiency from a Labor government. That is not the approach that we have taken. We provide assistance to people to allow them to buy their own set-top boxes and to make their own consumer decisions.

Not only did it cost an enormous amount of money; the actual service that was provided was at times incredibly deficient. At the time, Ms Diane Pasco from Warrnambool requested assistance under this scheme. She had four visits to her home by departmental contractors—four visits by the contractors without connecting the set-top box properly. Four visits! I reckon I could go and install my grandma's set-top box in less than four visits. Four visits from contractors, all charged to the taxpayer, and then, after those four visits—and none of them were satisfactory—Ms Pascoe had to go out and pay for a digital set-top box and install it herself! She did it all on her own for $100! The Labor Party were charging people more than 600 bucks on average to do this service and often not even getting it right. If you cannot install set-top boxes in people's homes, you cannot run a government, surely. If you cannot install a set-top box, you cannot be trusted to run the Australian government. That is what their approach was.

Thankfully, most Australians did not have to rely on the Labor government to provide their TVs or the digital content. They did it themselves. As I said, around 96 per cent—perhaps more now—of households do have access to high-definition content. They have access to a lot more since that time. Services such as Netflix, Stan, Presto, TENplay and other forms of digital content that are delivered through iPads have ballooned in popularity.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

ABC.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

ABC. Thank you, Senator Collins. ABC iview. I am a regular user of that as well. All of these services are now provided on many different platforms as well as through your TV. There are many different platforms, not just a broadcasting service. That has put substantial competitive pressures on the free-to-air TV broadcasters. They are probably only going to increase, as I believe we are only seeing the genesis of this change. As people get more and more and better internet through the National Broadband Network, a scheme that we have improved since coming to government, these kinds of services, delivered largely through the internet rather than through broadcasting spectrum, will become more popular and that will create a greater competitive threat to free-to-air broadcasters. That is one of the reasons why we need this change, to help remove red tape and regulation from the free-to-air TV sector so that they can compete with these new services on a more level playing field.

I also would like to make some comments about the broader regulatory landscape in this area, because there are restrictions on free-to-air TV broadcasters other than simply this one, and they are restrictions that at least some free-to-air TV broadcasters feel are limiting their scope to compete with other forms of TV and digital content. In particular we do have specific restrictions on mergers in the media and broadcasting landscape. The one that affects TV most directly is colloquially known as the reach rule, or the 75 per cent rule, which restricts any broadcast provider to only 75 per cent of Australia's broadcasting scope. That has been in existence for a long time—

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What do you stand for, Matt?

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If people listen up, I might expand a little on that topic right now.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You've only got four minutes.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think I can do it in 4½ minutes. The reach rule has been a longstanding restriction in broadcasting from the late 1980s—it might have been Paul Keating; it might have been the early 1990s. We have had this rule for at least 20 years, and it has been reviewed a number of times. It is quite a blunt rule. It is unusual to have a restriction on mergers in a particular landscape of 75 per cent, or any particular number for that matter, but we have that in our broadcasting space. We do have it for a reason, and the reason is that it guarantees a diversity of broadcasters in our landscape. It means by definition that in the 25 per cent left, apart from that 75 per cent, there have to be dedicated regional broadcasters. Channels 9, 10 and 7 cannot cover the field, if you like—by law they cannot cover 100 per cent of Australia, so there have to be some regional broadcasters and that is why we have WIN, Prime and Southern Cross as well—and NBN. It is blunt, I recognise that, and almost every review that has been done since that time has recognised difficulties or issues with the reach rule. As I say, it does serve a purpose. I believe Australians want a diverse media landscape. I do believe that Australians want to have local news and local content delivered in their local area. I therefore believe that we need to have some protections in our legal framework to permit broadcasters, or the media industry more generally, to deliver that diverse landscape.

At the moment, as it stands, if the 75 per cent rule or other rules such as the two-out-of-three rule, which goes to more than just TV, were removed, a proposed merger between two broadcasting entities would be assessed by the ACCC under section 50 of the Competition and Consumer Act. That act obviously deals with matters of competition and economic efficiency, and the ACCC has to be bound by the provisions of that act when looking at any particular potential merger. I have great scepticism that any such process could adequately deal with the issues of media diversity through section 50 alone. Section 50 itself is there to protect competition, not to promote any kind of diversity or any kind of specific promotion of a minimum number of players in a market. The Trade Practices Act, or now the Competition and Consumer Act, is focused on delivering outcomes that are in the best interests of consumers, not necessarily saying that there must be a minimum number of competitors in a market, whereas I believe in the media landscape at least there is a different set of issues that need to be considered. That means that there possibly would need to be specific media rules around mergers and acquisitions.

I do note that other reviews have been done in this area, such as the Productivity Commission's broadcasting review and the convergence review a few years ago. They both called into question the 75 per cent rule, and also the two-out-of-three rule, but they also made the point that a diverse media landscape is an important objective for public policy and perhaps needs protection through other ways and means. I note that at this stage at least those who are seeking to remove that 75 per cent rule have not really put forward a specific proposal to deal with issues of media diversity apart from just the competition issues. I am sure those issues will continue to be considered and debated both here in the parliament and in the wider public policy sphere.

I fully support this bill. As I said at the start, as I am more of a rugby league fan I very much hope that Channel 9 will be able to provide the grand final in high definition. I hope that at least one Queensland team and maybe two will be in the grand final but if they are not I will still be watching, and I hope that along with millions of other Australians we can finally enjoy the pre-eminent and premier sporting event on our nation's calendar in high definition on big screen TVs.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It does not look as though any other colleagues wish to make a contribution to the debate on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Primary Television Broadcasting Service) Bill, so I will sum up. I was a little bit bemused by some of the calls from those opposite claiming that on this side we were seeking to drag out debate on this important bill. I think we have had just on an hour of debate on this bill, and I cannot help it if there is a genuine love of and interest in sport on this side of the chamber. It is entirely understandable that there was a spontaneous desire by my colleagues to contribute in this debate.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A spontaneous desire?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A spontaneous desire! We do not operate a command and control operation on this side of the chamber. We let freedom reign. I must say that I have thoroughly enjoyed the contributions of my colleagues. They were light-hearted, pertinent and also provided the opportunity to canvass some other issues in the area of broadcasting policy, as Senator Canavan did. So I thank my colleagues for their contributions.

This bill, the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Primary Television Broadcasting Service) Bill 2015, as has been well canvassed by my colleagues, seeks to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to provide the national and commercial free-to-air broadcasters with the flexibility to deliver programming on their primary television broadcasting services in either standard-definition or high-definition formats. And what a good thing that is. This proposal will enable broadcasters to innovate and evolve their services to incorporate new technologies, ensuring they continue to remain relevant in a changing media environment. Changing media environments is a point that Minister Turnbull talks about a lot—and what a good person to have as the chief steward in that area of policy.

This initiative does sit squarely with our deregulation work program. It does reinforce our commitment to removing unnecessary red tape and outdated regulations that hamper industry from providing the services that respond to audience preferences.

I know that it is no surprise to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that many Australians expect that premium free-to-air programming should be provided in high definition, especially of events such as live sports. The bill clearly responds to consumer expectations and is strongly supported by free-to-air broadcasters. It provides them with the flexibility to televise upcoming events such as this year's AFL and NRL grand finals in high definition, should those broadcasters choose to do so. I think that is the really important point here: this is an example of government getting out of the way. We are not dictating what should happen, but we are getting out of the way, allowing broadcasters the freedom and the capacity to respond to consumer demand and desire. This is a good piece of legislation. I do not think there will be any colleagues who will not be supportive of this bill. I look across at Senator Ludlam and he is smiling and giving the thumbs up. So I think this is, indeed, a moment of unity in this place and I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.