Chapter 2Key issues
2.1This chapter examines key issues raised in evidence, as follows:
Access to Viewer Access Satellite Television (VAST).
Amendments regarding consolidation of transmission arrangements.
Concerns about the future of regional broadcasting.
2.2The chapter concludes with the committee’s view.
Access to VAST
2.3Submitters highlighted the value of free-to-air services. For instance, the Community Broadcasting Association of Australia endorsed comments by the Minister for Communications describing free-to-air broadcasting as ‘special’. The Community Broadcasting Association submitted that ‘[i]t is the stable, free and ubiquitous platform that means people in both metropolitan areas and rural and regional Australia have access’. Free TV Australia pointed to various economic and social benefits of the sector, including that ‘Australia’s commercial broadcasters create jobs, provide trusted local news, tell Australian stories, give Australians a voice and nurture Australian talent’. It said that terrestrial television transmission:
…is very important to regional audiences, especially where internet access, data allowances, and speeds do not match those of metropolitan areas, or where socio-economic conditions for some audience members impact their ability to afford broadband.
2.4In relation to the bill, Free TV submitted that ‘[c]hanges to regulatory settings to allow relevant audiences to access VAST services are not opposed’. However, ‘there are questions about the real benefit of offering VAST as a replacement solution for just one TV network that is no longer accessible terrestrially, especially given the cost to householders of equipment installation’.
2.5Free TV pointed out that VAST users ‘may not get their local news or advertising’ and described the cost of VAST installation as ‘substantial’. While it is ‘unaware of how local installers in the Mildura area might choose to price VAST installation’, Free TV submitted:
Informal advice Free TV has obtained is that total hardware costs (decoder box, dish, cabling, etc) will be around $400, with installation requiring two hours’ work. Existing Foxtel subscribers may not require a dish. A typical all-up charge of around $800 has been referred to in this submission and in previous policy discussions, but individual installers may choose to ask much more.
2.6Two individuals expressed concerns about the loss of free-to-air ChannelTen in Mildura and suggested the government fund the broadcast in some way. One said that ‘[u]nfortunately the people using free to air tv cannot afford $500-$800 for tv dishes to watch one channel, or they would be watching Netflix’.
2.7The Community Broadcasting Association supported expanding VAST access beyond the proposals in the bill. It noted that ABC and SBS services are available across Australia regardless of whether the user is in a ‘service deficient’ area, and said:
In exactly the same way, the services of any commercial broadcasters that receive taxpayer funding to be carried on VAST ought to be available to users of VAST without the need for special authorisation, and without the user needing to be in an area that is ’service-deficient’.
2.8The Community Broadcasting Association proposed that the bill be amended to remove the ‘service deficient’ area requirement, ‘or, at least, a commitment to simplify access for users by declaring that - for the purposes of VAST - all services that are licensed as free-to-air broadcasters are in “service‑deficient” areas’.
2.9Regarding this proposal, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts confirmed that the bill ‘doesn’t contemplate broader changes to the access arrangements for VAST’. A proposal to effectively remove the conditional access scheme ‘would represent a significant departure from the current arrangements for VAST, and would require further analysis and consultation with affected parties…’.
Implementation
2.10Free TV submitted that ‘[s]ecuring access by Mildura residents to VAST will depend on a website for which the ACMA is responsible, mySwitch’. It suggested that implementation of the bill ‘faces two practical challenges’: that the information on mySwitch appears to no longer be updated; and that the mySwitch tool ‘is understood to be based on obsolete software and to require replacement in the short- to medium-term’. Free TV said:
Securing ongoing access to commercial television services via VAST will require a commitment from the regulator to maintain and, in consultation with the administrators of the VAST Conditional Access Scheme (CAS), ultimately to rejuvenate or replace the ageing mySwitch tool.
Timing
2.11The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) advised that if the bill passes, any process to consider declaring the Mildura and Sunraysia area to be service deficient may take three to four months:
Because a service deficiency declaration is a legislative instrument, the ACMA is required to undertake such consultation as it considers appropriate, and is reasonably practicable, prior to making such a declaration. Following a consultation period, the ACMA would review submissions received and decide whether to make the declaration.
2.12The ACMA cited the consultation requirement at section 17 of the Legislation Act2003 and explained that, absent other factors, it typically prefers a six week consultation period—though this may be longer or shorter depending on the circumstances. Following consultation, ‘[t]he length of time taken to assess submissions received as part of the consultation process will depend upon the nature and number of submissions received’. The ACMA acknowledged the current situation in Mildura and said:
The ACMA will take this situation into account when considering its consultation strategy for any service deficiency declarations it makes if the Bill passes. It will also take into account that the ACMA has not previously made a service deficiency declaration under the BSA [Broadcasting Services Act 1992] and has not previously heard from stakeholders on this type of instrument. We remain obligated to undertake appropriate consultation, as is reasonably practical, for each legislative instrument we propose to make.
Consolidation of transmission arrangements
2.13The Community Broadcasting Association submitted that it ‘supports the changes described in the Bill to enable consolidation of transmitter licences for certain broadcasting services, and in regard to the preparation of television licence area plans’.
2.14Free TV submitted that it ‘does not oppose the regulatory adjustments set out in the Bill’ and its ‘only comment on the drafting of the Bill relates to the proposed measures to clarify that two commercial television broadcasting licences can share a single TV multiplex’.
2.15Free TV said that legislation should ‘accommodate the option for broadcasters if they choose to move to 3‑services‑into‑1 multiplex sharing’. While this kind of scenario is ‘currently hypothetical’, it ‘could readily arise in two situations’:
all three commercial TV services in an area share two multiplexes, with some channels from each of the three licensees on each multiplex; or
all three commercial TV services in an area are carried on a single multiplex.
2.16Free TV advanced that ‘[i]f consolidation is restricted to two licensees into one multiplex, the range of potential future sharing scenarios is seriously curtailed’. It supported amendments to Parts 2 and 3 of Schedule 1 to the bill on this point.
2.17The department explained that the bill as drafted would:
…permit the licensees of 2 transmitter licences allocated under subsection102(1) of the Radiocommunications Act 1992 to request that the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) declare one of those 2 licences to be a ‘consolidated licence’, on which all relevant broadcasting services are provided, where it is satisfied that it is appropriate in all the circumstances to do so.
2.18Regarding the situation in the Mount Gambier/South East TV1 and Riverland TV1 licence areas, the department said the bill ‘would enable the ACMA to make a declaration in relation to the relevant transmitter licences in these licence areas, and for any other proposals that may come forward in the future’. It also advised that the bill would effectively permit a ‘three-to-one’ arrangement:
These provisions would also permit further consolidation to take place between a transmitter licence declared to be a ‘consolidated licence’ and any other applicable transmitter licence. Any such additional consolidation would be subject to the ACMA making a further declaration, where it is satisfied that it is appropriate in all the circumstances to do so.
If such a declaration were to be made, this would effectively permit a ‘three-to-one’ consolidation of transmitter licences, should the relevant licensees wish to pursue this type of change to their transmission networks and licensing arrangements.
2.19The department clarified that ‘[t]his is why the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill refers to “two or more broadcasting licences” on page 5’. It said ‘[t]he Australian Government will consider the need for any clarifications to the Explanatory Memorandum following the Inquiry process and any recommendations of the Committee’.
Concerns about the future of regional broadcasting
2.20Free TV described the closure of Mildura Digital Television as ‘the canary in the coalmine’. It submitted:
Regional Australians are starting to lose access to commercial television services and the ongoing availability of local trusted news, local advertising opportunities for regional businesses, and the availability of Australian content in regional areas is at stake.
There are risks for the health of Australian democracy and social cohesion when accountable local public interest journalism, and Australian sports and entertainment content that reflects our way of life, are no longer available.
2.21Free TV provided data suggesting that ‘regional audiences are more reliant than metropolitan audiences on terrestrial television’. However, it also said ‘[t]ransmission for metropolitan broadcasters represents a smaller proportion of overall costs compared to regional broadcasters who have larger areas to service and smaller populations to attract advertising revenues’.
2.22Free TV advanced that ‘long-term structural measures are now urgently needed to ensure the future viability of regional commercial television services in Australia’.
Committee view
2.23The committee affirms the value of free-to-air broadcasting. It helps to inform the public, provide entertainment, and foster community connection. This is supported by the evidence to this inquiry.
2.24The bill before the committee is intended to support access to free-to-air broadcasting in regional Australia. It does so by empowering the ACMA to make declarations that broaden eligibility for the VAST safety net service, and by enabling broadcasters to adopt more efficient transmission arrangements.
2.25The committee acknowledges that submitters suggested certain adjustments to the bill. The Community Broadcasting Association proposed amendments to allow those outside service deficient areas to access VAST. In the committee’s view, this goes beyond the targeted reform contemplated by the bill. The committee accepts the department’s advice that this kind of change to the VAST safety net would require further analysis and consultation.
2.26Some submitters highlighted the potential financial cost for users to set up VAST access, and Free TV also suggested there may be practical implementation challenges. The committee appreciates these concerns but considers that the bill, which facilitates expansion of the government funded VAST service, is an appropriate response to the recent commercial decision affecting Mildura. The committee also expects the government to ensure that any implementation challenges, including any that relate to the mySwitch website, are mitigated effectively.
2.27Regarding the consolidation of transmission licences, Free TV sought amendments to allow three licences to be consolidated into one. The committee understands that the bill clearly addresses the immediate situation in the licence areas of Mount Gambier/South East TV1 and Riverland TV1, as well as any similar situations that may arise. The committee also takes note of the department’s advice that the bill would effectively permit a ‘three-to-one’ consolidation of transmitter licences. Such arrangements would be subject to due consideration by the ACMA, as is appropriate.
2.28The committee is cognisant of broader concerns about the future of regional broadcasting. However, those concerns should not delay the passage of this bill. The sooner the bill is passed, the sooner the benefits cited above can take effect. As the Minister for Communications said during debate on the bill, regarding efforts to ensure that all Australians have equitable access to high-quality television broadcasting services, the bill ‘will make a small but meaningful contribution to that outcome’. The committee also notes that the minister has provided a response to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee regarding the disallowance and sunsetting issues discussed in Chapter 1.
2.29Should the bill pass, the ACMA will be able to consider declaring the Mildura and Sunraysia area to be service-deficient. The ACMA’s evidence to this inquiry indicates that any declaration process may take three to four months to allow for proper consultation. Noting the current situation in Mildura and recognising that any declaration process is a matter for the ACMA, the committee encourages the ACMA to consider expediting this process to the extent it would be appropriate, reasonable and in accordance legislative obligations to do so.
2.30The committee recommends that the Senate pass the bill.
Senator Karen Grogan
Chair