Mr MURPHY (6:23 PM) The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Digital Television and Datacasting) Bill 2000 will amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, the BSA, and the Radiocommunications Act 1992, the RCA, to refine arrangements for the introduction of digital television and establish a system for the regulation of datacasting services. The conversion to digital broadcasting required amendments to both the BSA and the RCA. The former sets out the ownership and programming conditions for broadcasting licences and is administered by the Australian Broadcasting Authority. The latter regulates the usage of the spectrum including the licensing of transmitting apparatus and is administered by the Australian Communications Authority. These amendments were contained in the Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Act 1998, which provides the legislative basis for the scheme. The act instructed the ABA to formulate digital conversion schemes for commercial and national broadcasters in accordance with the policy objectives described in this act. The digital conversion act was accompanied by related revenue legislation, the Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Act 1998.

Datacasting is defined in the digital conversion act as a service, other than a broadcasting service, that delivers information to persons having appropriate equipment to receive that information where the delivery of the service uses the broadcasting services bands. This definition is required because the market for datacasting does not as yet exist. The precise nature of datacasting is still unknown. Because of these and other uncertainties, the digital conversion act also required the minister to have reviews conducted in the following areas to see if amendments to the legislation were required: enhanced programming, the scope of datacasting services, multichannelling by the national broadcasters—the ABC and SBS—retransmission of free-to-air digital broadcasting services on pay TV systems, underserved regional licence areas, convergence of broadcasting and non-broadcasting technologies, high definition television standards, captioning standards and the regulatory arrangements that should apply to the allocation of spectrum in the broadcasting services bands for use for the provision of datacasting services.

These reviews were announced by the government in the 21 December 1999 policy statement by the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. These decisions are: free-to-air broadcasters will be required to provide a standard definition digital television, SDTV, signal at all times and provide at least 20 hours per week of high definition digital television, HDTV. Datacasting will be restricted to ensure that it is different from current television services. Datacasters will be able to provide information programs where the main purpose is to provide information on products, services and activities—interactive home shopping, banking and bill paying, web pages, email services, education services and interactive games. In certain circumstances they will be able to provide 10-minute headline bulletins in the areas of news, weather and business information. However, datacasters will be prevented from showing drama, current affairs programs, sporting programs and events, music programs, infotainment and lifestyle programs, comedy programs, documentaries, reality television programs, children's programs, light entertainment and va-riety programs, compilation programs, quiz programs and game shows. The government will allow the free-to-air broadcasters to provide digital enhancements to their main simulcast programs provided they are directly linked to, and contemporaneous with, the main program and do not amount to a separate multichannel program.

The December policy statement also foreshadowed further decisions would be made in such areas as captioning requirements, assistance to regional broadcasters, the role of community television and the multichannelling requirements of the ABC and SBS. Some of these matters are covered in the current legislative package. The major decisions are: the ABC and SBS will be subject to the same limitations on multichannelling as the commercial broadcasters; free-to-air broadcasters will be required to caption all prime time programs and all news and current affairs programs, apart from non-English and music programs; commercial broadcasters in underserved regional markets—that is, those with only one or two commercial services—will be exempted from HDTV requirements and will be able to multichannel additional services; and the datacasting licensing regime will be introduced. This will be administered by the ABA with conditions similar to those for pay TV licences including industry codes of practice, a mechanism for complaints to the ABA and remedies for breaches of licensing provisions. The datacasting licence regime will also apply to the ABC and SBS. The minister will be required to review the regime before 1 January 2004 and to present the report to parliament.

I turn to the major issues affecting this legislation—firstly, the mandatory HDTV provisions. The requirement for HDTV transmission was presented by the government and accepted by the industry as a quid pro quo for the allocation of free spectrum to the existing broadcasters. However, concerns have since been expressed that the mandatory 20-hour per week transmission of a high definition service `involves a substantial policy risk'. This was the view of the Productivity Commission when it recently released its final report on the inquiry into broadcasting. I note that in the history of reviewing our media laws in Australia `quid pro quo' also refers to the making of some concessions to the industry if something is given for something. However, we are left wondering what we, the public, are getting for these concessions.

I note in the Productivity Commission's final report into broadcasting that the existing ban on entry until 2007 of other broadcasters is said to be required to protect the revenue base of the existing broadcasters. Existing broadcasters complain of high costs in producing their quotas of Australian drama, documentaries and children's programming. I find it odd that the broadcasting industry is marked for special treatment and compensated for meeting its obligations. As the report says, `Higher costs do not justify restrictions on entry.'

Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.

Mr MURPHY —Before Mr Deputy Speaker Quick politely interrupted me for the dinner adjournment, I was speaking about the HDTV provisions affecting the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Digital Television and Datacasting) Bill 2000 and the Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Bill 1998 as well as the quid pro quo arrangements which have operated whenever our media laws have been amended. Since the interruption, my wife, Adriana, has seen that I had a hearty meal, and I will now finish this speech on a full stomach!

I note that the Productivity Commission says that HDTV television sets will cost approximately $8,000 and that HDTV will be a premium service for a small number of viewers. However, HDTV production distribution and transmission costs will ultimately be borne by the community as a whole. In other words, a mandatory HDTV requirement is effectively a subsidy for the well-off—that is, those who can afford the service—by those who cannot afford the service. Furthermore, the commission states that the mandatory HDTV policy may constrain the emergence of new services, prolong the conversion process and may have effects at cross-purposes to the Australian content quotas. Australia is the only country to mandate HDTV, and it is also the only country currently planning to use the DVB system for this purpose. These unique requirements could have an impact on the cost and availability of equipment by crowding out those who cannot afford the HDTV standard. Moreover, the Productivity Commission recommended that a new regulatory framework would facilitate consumers' adoption of digital television. It recommended, in particular, that HDTV should not be mandated but should be left to the market, that datacasting services should be defined as digital broadcasting services and that multichannelling by the commercial and national broadcasters should be permitted.

It is timely to review the opposition's current position on this matter. The shadow minister for communications, Stephen Smith, said in his press release of 21 December 1999:

It is now known that the government in 1998 determined to hold a moratorium on new free-to-air television broadcast licences until 2007. The opposition insisted that the period of the moratorium be reduced from the government's eight-year period to six years. I am dismayed at this reasoning. The Productivity Commission broadcasting inquiry report arose from the competition principles agreement. This prohibition on new television broadcasters into the Australian market until 2007 is a direct denial of new broadcasters into Australia.

I now refer to the current financial starvation this government is subjecting the ABC and SBS television stations to. I again cite my parliamentary colleague the member for Perth, Stephen Smith, who has said that:

This has not been forthcoming. Instead, we see the current government legislation lock out potential broadband competitors on the one hand, while on the other starve existing government competitors who already own broadcasting licences. Therefore, who can possibly benefit from these legislative amendments if it is not the Packer and Murdoch duopoly? This legislative scheme is now very clear in our minds. Now we get the picture.

The legislation is predetermined to ensure only one outcome, that is, that the final strokes of the pen ensure the decimation of competition against the two big players. Meanwhile, the moratorium ensures the completion of digital capitalisation by the two main media magnates, placing digital transmission completely out of the range of any other competitor from entry in six years time. But wait, there's more. There is also a viability test in the Broadcasting Services Act that makes it even harder for new players to enter the broadcasting industry—a position that can only favour the existing operators. It is noteworthy that this viability test does not exist in any other industry. Therefore, one can reasonably question what purpose this viability test serves. In the absence of any positive answer in support of this test, it is reasonable to say the test benefits the existing operators, particularly Mr Packer and Mr Murdoch. In the absence of any regard for the public interest, the viability test should be scrapped.

It is my view that datacasting should be defined to mean all digital broadcasting. Also, datacasting licences should not be limited in their application to further protect the privileged. Internet, pay television and magazines are not subject to the existing cross-media rules. The Trade Practices Act 1974 should immediately be amended to include a public interest test over all media, similar to public interest tests which apply in the United States and England. Therefore, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the ABA would have to show that it is in the public interest for a merger to occur. In other words, the Trade Practices Act must be amended to cover mergers.

The digital broadcasting environment that we now live in presents the perfect opportunity to review our media laws. However, the parliament must be concerned only with changing the laws so that more players—local and foreign—can enter the market and provide greater competition and hence greater diversity of public opinion through free-to-air television, pay television, Internet in all its manifestations, newspapers, magazines, radio stations and datacasting, as well as other new technologies.

I also note in the Productivity Commission inquiry's final report into broadcasting that an important issue was the effect of investment by media proprietors into non-media business. Removing existing restrictions on broadcasting licences must improve the probability of attracting media proprietors who do not have significant non-media assets in Australia. One might reasonably expect that foreign media proprietors would have less reason to interfere in domestic affairs because they are less likely to have substantial other investments which may lead to conflict of interest. For example, Network Ten, which is operated partly by a Canadian company, CanWest Pacific, which has an economic interest of 57.5 per cent—including a 14.99 per cent shareholding—may have more unbiased editorial content in their news broadcasts.

I now turn to the issue of enhanced programming and multi-channelling. The government rejected the ABC's submission for multi-channelling in part because it would provide unfair competition for pay television. However, the definition of enhanced programming contained in the bill permits both commercial and national free-to-air broadcasters to effectively multi-channel sporting events if it involves the same sport at the same venue with overlapping times. For example, it would be possible to broadcast more than one match at a time from a tennis tournament. Pay TV operators have expressed concern with these provisions. It should be noted that the commercial free-to-air television broadcasters are already protected from competition from the pay TV sector with regard to major sporting events, through the anti-siphoning provisions in the Broadcasting Services Act.

I turn next to the issue of datacasting restrictions. Pay TV operators and other potential datacasters have argued that the restrictions on datacasting are too severe, in that they will prevent the introduction of new digital services. On the other hand, the commercial free-to-air television networks state that the provisions will allow datacasters to deliver a de facto television service by allowing Internet services to be linked to digital television. The Productivity Commission's report supports the former view. It states that the policy `places considerable and arbitrary limitations on the innovative, interactive and additional services made possible by the technology of digital transmission'. It points to a number of anomalies, such as that, while free-to-air broadcasters are required to show children's programs for social and cultural reasons, datacasters are prohibited from doing so; datacasters can show news and parliamentary proceedings but not current affairs; and datacasters will be prevented from showing documentaries but not educational programs, when the two categories are sometimes indistinguishable.

I am dismayed at the proposed changes in this legislation. These proposals effectively deny the entry of foreign media operators into Australia. The Broadcasting Services Act has conflicting provisions which, on the one hand, restrict competition but, on the other hand, encourage diversity. That is, there is a lot of tension in the BSA. In December 1999, the opposition pledged that it would consider this legislation in the context of its strategic objectives in broadcasting, including equitable access to new technology; the public interest in a diverse range of information, services and entertainment; the continued development of a viable and vibrant industry; high quality Australian programming, contributing to the development and reflection of a sense of Australian identity and character.

What we are ending up with in this bill is a statutory lock-out of new competitors and, even worse, the stifling, and slow suffocation, of what few competitors are left: namely, the public broadcasters, the ABC and SBS. In its place, we have a financial and legislative environment that is perfect for `mopping up' by the two media magnates, Mr Packer and Mr Murdoch. They are the principal beneficiaries of this bill. The situation is a case of deja vu, much like what occurred within the telecommunication industry with regard to local calls. Purported market deregulation has not resulted in the betterment of services. Market discrimination against marginal profit areas, such as regional Australia, has continued to take its toll on service levels by Telstra—so, too, the financial discrimination against those who cannot afford the HDTV technology. Further, the industry costs of conversion to digital will place alternative competitors out of the reach of those who wish to participate.

All this augurs for a future industry that is very different from the ones we expect in our objective statement. That is, instead of seeing a market with a greater diversity of services and products, we will be subject to the mind control of two dominant media influences in the market, namely, Mr Packer and Mr Murdoch. This is not dissimilar to the promises that were made about the banking industry. We were promised that deregulation would result in greater product availability, better services and more competition. Instead, we have been dominated by a banking oligopoly, with the four retail banks failing to do anything more than stifle outside competition, increase bank fees and manipulate our access to our market. I spoke about this in the House less than two hours ago.

It is time we as Australians recognised the failure of so-called industry deregulation. This sort of deregulation can only lead to yet greater control by oligopolies, the demise of free markets and the denial of competition in the marketplace. The basis upon which cross-media ownership rules may be dispensed with was the notion that there would be so many media owners that it would be unnecessary to persist with cross-media ownership rules. This is very much the thinking contained in Alvin Toffler's book The Third Wave. However, it presumes that media will become so decentralised that the large corporate media entities will simply disappear. In fact, the opposite is true. What we see here is the further superconcentration of power in all media—television, Internet and so forth. Internet site access is still dominated by the Packer-Murdoch cartel, and this trend is unlikely to do anything but continue with the relentless pursuit for market share and power. (Time expired)